« ÎnapoiContinuă »
The agreement refers specifically to exchanges of coaches, trainers, and instructors, players and teams, umpires and referees, and training films. Information to be exchanged is to include information and experiences in specialized areas, such as sports for the handicapped and medical science sports information, information on organization of sports programs and physical fitness programs, and information on the umpiring and refereeing of sports. The Governments are to encourage private institutions to cooperate to the maximum extent possible.
Responsibilities assumed by each party are to be executed within the framework of its domestic policy and legislation, procedures, and practices.
Article IV of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the United States and Spain, signed January 24, 1976 (TIAS 8360; 27 UST; entered into force September 21, 1976), together with Supplementary Agreement No. 4 and a related exchange of notes. provides for continuation and expansion of educational and cultural cooperation between the two countries. The expanded exchanges program is to involve teachers, researchers, scientists, scholars and students and to extend to all branches of learning, especially natural and applied sciences, economics, and the language and culture of the two countries. In the field of arts and letters, the two Governments agreed to sponsor visits of authors and artists and encourage reciprocal dissemination of their works.
The two Governments also agreed to cooperate in expansion of the Spanish educational system, with the United States assisting in research, development, and advanced training for professors and other teaching personnel and providing various materials and equipment to educational research and teaching laboratories and libraries for Spanish universities and other centers of higher learning.
The report of Feb. 6, 1976, of the Secretary of State to the President with respect to the treaty (S. Ex. E, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.) states that the agreement contemplated a grant from the United States in the amount of $12 million to support the five-year program, which is considered to be of particular importance in strengthening the relationship between the United States and Spain.
As part of the celebration of the American Revolution Bicentennial, the Government of the United States and the Government of the United Kingdom announced on July 1, 1975, a program of fellowships in the creative and performing arts. The program was established by an exchange of notes on July 2, 1975 (TIAS 8168; 26
UST 2512). Up to five fellowships are to be awarded each year for a period of five years in such fields as drama, opera, ballet, music, cinema, television, graphics, design, painting, sculpture, and architecture, or any other field of activity considered by the selection committees to be in the spirit of the fellowships. The fellowships are open to men and women already established in their fields who show a clear potential to become prominent members of their professions. Fellowships for American participants are funded by the Department of State and the National Endowment for the Arts; they are administered by the Endowment. In the United Kingdom the program is administered by the British Council.
U.S. - Venezuela
The United States and Venezuela signed a statement of understanding relating to educational cooperation on May 7, 1976. The statement commits the two Governments to seek new ways to provide greater structure and impact to their academic cooperation. It affirms a decision to cooperate in a program of scholarly exchange in fields mutually agreed upon in consultation with experts of both countries. Each side independently assumes the responsibility for the funding and implementation of those activities to which it has agreed. The understanding also provides for meetings between specialists from the two countries periodically to review progress and to recommend new projects to their respective governments. The agreement continues in force until September 30, 1978, subject to amendment or extension by mutual consent.
PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF
Negotiation; Inquiry; Conciliation;
Law of the Sea
Secretary of State Kissinger gave an address on April 8, 1976, in New York, setting forth U.S. positions relative to the U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, including continued U.S. insistence on the inclusion of "provisions for compulsory and impartial settlement of disputes in order that differences of interpretation and incompatible practices can be settled peacefully." The relevant excerpt from the Secretary's address follows:
No nation could accept unilateral interpretation of a treaty of such vast scope by individual states or by an international seabed organization or any other interested party.
To promote the fair settlement of disputes involving the interpretation of the treaty, the United States proposes the establishment of an impartial dispute settlement mechanism whose findings would be binding on all signatory states. Such a mechanism would insure that all states have recourse to a legal process which would be nonpolitical, rapid, and impartial to all. It would especially protect the rights of all states in the economic zone by resolving differences in interpretation of the treaty which might lead to serious conflict between parties. It must be responsible for assuring the proper balance between the rights of coastal states and the rights of other states which also use-and indeed often are dependent upon-the economic zones of coastal states. And its decisions must be obligatory.
Establishment of a professional, impartial, and compulsory dispute settlement mechanism is necessary to insure that the oceans will be governed by the rule of law rather than the rule of force. Unless this point is accepted many nations could not agree to the treaty, since only through such a mechanism can they be assured that their interests will be fairly protected.
Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIV, No. 1922, Apr. 26, 1976, p. 538.
At the fifth session of the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, which met at New York August 2 to September 17, 1976, the plenary of the conference met informally throughout the session under the the chairmanship of President Hamilton Shirley Amerasinghe to review the single negotiating text which had emerged from the 1975 session (A/CONF. 62/WP. 9, Rev. 1). Major issues of debate revolved around the choice of procedures for dispute settlement and the extent of dispute settlement with respect to the economic zone. Following the close of the session, President Amerasinghe issued a Revised Single Negotiating Text on dispute settlement (A/CONF. 62/WP. 9/Rev. 2), noting that it had no other status than that of serving as a basis for continued negotiation.
As in the past the United States strongly supported the principle that a new Law of the Sea Convention must include a comprehensive system for the obligatory settlement of disputes relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention and that the procedures employed should lead to final and binding decisions.
The Revised Single Negotiating Text sets forth a procedure by which each contracting party could choose to accept the jurisdiction of one of four dispute settlement procedures-the Law of the Sea Tribunal, the International Court of Justice, arbitration, or a special arbitration procedure relating to fisheries, the marine environment, marine scientific research, or navigation. The U.S. Delegation indicated that it had not decided which of the procedures it would choose, and therefore would seek to make each as effective as possible. In a case where the parties to the dispute have chosen different procedures, the United States suggested giving the plaintiff a choice between the procedure chosen by the defendant and arbitration. The revised provision adopts that choice "unless the parties otherwise agree." Optional exclusions from the dispute settlement procedures may be declared by a contracting party with respect to sea boundary delimitations, disputes concerning military activities, and disputes in respect of which the U.N. Security Council determines that proceedings under the Convention interfere with its functions.
U.S. Delegation Report, 5th Sess., 3d U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, Dept. of State File D/LOS. The Revised Single Negotiating Text on dispute settlement issued after the 5th Sess. is set out below:
PART IV. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Having regard to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations . .
Obligation To Settle Disputes by Peaceful Means
The Contracting Parties shall settle any dispute between them relating to the interpretation or application of the present Convention in accordance with paragraph 3 of article 2, and through the peaceful means indicated in paragraph 1 of article 33, of the Charter of the United Nations.
Settlement of Disputes by Means Chosen by the Parties
Nothing in this Part shall impair the right of any Contracting Parties to agree at any time to settle a dispute between them relating to the interpretation or application of the present Convention by any peaceful means of their own choice.
Obligation To Exchange Views
1. If a dispute arises between Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation or application of the present Convention, those parties shall proceed expeditiously to exchange views regarding settlement of the dispute.
2. Similarly, the parties shall proceed to an exchange of views whenever a procedure for the settlement of a dispute has been terminated without a settlement of the dispute, or where a settlement has been reached and the circumstances require further consultation regarding the manner of its implementation.
Obligations Under General, Regional or Special Agreements
If Contracting Parties which are parties to a dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the present Convention have accepted, through a general, regional or special agreement or some other instrument or instruments, an obligation to settle such dispute by resort to a final and binding procedure, such dispute shall, at the request of any party to the dispute, be referred to such procedure. In this case any other procedure provided in this Part shall not apply, unless the parties to the dispute otherwise agree.
Procedure When Dispute Is not Settled by Means Chosen
1. If the parties to a dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the present Convention have agreed to settle such dispute by a peaceful means of their own choice, the procedure specified in this Part shall apply only where no settlement has been reached, and the agreement between the parties does not preclude any further procedure.
2. If the parties to such dispute have also agreed on a time-limit for such a procedure, the provisions of paragraph 1 shall apply only upon the expiration of that time-limit.
1. Any Contracting Party which is party to a dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the present Convention may invite the other party or parties to the dispute to submit the dispute to conciliation in accordance with the procedure in Annex I or with some other procedure.
2. If the other party accepts this invitation and the parties agree upon the procedure, any party to the dispute may submit it to the agreed conciliation procedure. 3. If the other party does not accept the invitation or the parties do not agree upon the procedure, the conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to be terminated. 4. When a dispute has been submitted to conciliation, such conciliation proceedings may only be terminated in accordance with the provisions of Annex I or other agreed conciliation procedure, as the case may be.