and any territory or area the foreign relations for which the United States is responsible.

(b) The term "protected object of archeological or ethnological interest" means any object of archeological or ethnological interest, including any fragment or part thereof, which is subject to export control by the country of origin and is encompassed by an agreement with the country of origin made pursuant to Section 1 of this Act.

(c) The term "country of origin," as applied to any protected object of archeological or ethnological interest, means the country where such object was first discovered.

(d) The term "the Convention" means the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizations at its sixteenth session.

(e) The term "consignee" means consignee as defined in Section 483 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1483).

SECTION 10. In the Customs Territory of the United States, and in the Virgin Islands the provisions of this Act shall be enforced by appropriate Customs officers. In any other territory or area subject to this Act, the provisions shall be enforced by such persons as may be designated by the President.

East-West Center

On May 14, 1975, Governor George Ariyoshi of Hawaii signed legislation establishing a public, nonprofit educational corporation to operate the Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange between East and West-known as the East-West Center. The East-West Center was established by the U.S. Congress in 1960 by Chapter VII of Public Law 86-472 (74 Stat. 134), approved May 14, 1960, for the purpose of promoting better relations and understanding between the United States and the nations of Asia and the Pacific through cooperative study, training, and research. The existence of the new corporation allows the transfer of operation and management of the Center from the Board of Regents of the University of Hawaii to the new corporation. The Charter of the new corporation is designed, inter alia, to increase international participation in the Center's continuing program.

Dept. of State Press Release, No. 256, May 14, 1975.

Japan-United States Friendship Act

On October 20, 1975, President Ford signed into law the JapanUnited States Friendship Act (Public Law 94-118; 89 Stat. 603; 22 U.S.C. 2901-2906), establishing the Japan-United States Friendship Trust Fund and providing for the creation of a Japan-United States Friendship Commission to administer a program of expanded scholarly, cultural, and artistic ventures between the two countries. The purpose of the Act is stated to be:

to provide for the use of an amount equal to a part of the total sum payable by Japan to the United States in connection

with the reversion of Okinawa to Japanese administration and the remaining funds of the amount set aside in 1962 for educational and cultural exchange with Japan (known as the G.A.R.I.O.A. Account) to aid education and culture at the highest level in order to enhance reciprocal people-to-people understanding and to support the close friendship and mutuality of interests between the United States and Japan.

Appropriations for the Trust Fund were authorized for fiscal year 1976, to remain available if unappropriated, in an amount equal to 7.5 percent of the total funds payable to the United States pursuant to the Agreement between the United States and Japan concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, signed June 17, 1971 (TIAS 7314; 23 UST 446; entered into force May 15, 1972). Additionally authorized for the Fund were those funds available in U.S. accounts in Japan and transferred by the Government of Japan to the United States pursuant to the U.S. request made under Article V of the Agreement between the United States and Japan, signed January 9, 1962, and the exchange of notes of the same date (TIAS 5154; 13 UST 1957; entered into force September 11, 1962) (the G.A.R.I.O.A. Account), including interest accruing to the G.A.R.I.O.A. Account. Total funds thus authorized amounted to approximately $36 million.

To the amounts authorized there may be added any other amounts received by the Fund by way of gifts and donations; and interest and proceeds credited to it from investment by the Secretary of the Treasury of a portion of the Fund in interestbearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States.

The Japan-United States Commission is to be composed of the 12 members of the U.S. Panel of the Joint Committee on United States-Japan Cultural and Educational Cooperation established by the agreement of November 8, 1968 (TIAS 6597; 19 UST 7549; entered into force November 8, 1968), the Chairmen of the National Endowment for the Arts, the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, two Members of the House of Representatives to be appointed by the Speaker, and two Members of the Senate to be appointed by the President pro tempore. In signing the Act, President Ford made the following statement:

Because of the constitutional provision against Members of the Congress serving in any other office of the United States, the congressional members of the Commission will serve in an advisory capacity, as non voting members.

For the full text of President Ford's statement, see Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 11, No. 43, Oct. 27, 1975, p. 1189. Art. I, Sec. 6, cl. 2 of the Constitution of the United States provides:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

The Dept. of State Appropriation Act, 1976 (Title I of P.L. 94-121, approved Oct. 21, 1975; 89 Stat. 616) included the following appropriation for U.S.-Japan Friendship Activities (Foreign Currency Program):

For payments in Japanese currency from amounts paid into United States accounts by the Government of Japan pursuant to Article V of the Agreement between the United States of America and Japan concerning the settlement of post-war economic assistance signed at Tokyo, January 9, 1962, and the exchange of notes of the same date (13 U.S.T. 1957; T.I.A.S. 5154), amounts to be determined at such times as the funds may be required for activities authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended, to remain available until expended, including utilization for purposes of the grant of any interest earned by the Japanese grantees on funds made available to them, excepting such amounts as may be required by law to be applied to United States participation in the International Ocean Exposition to be held at Okinawa, Japan.

The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1976 (P.L. 94–157, approved Dec. 18, 1975; 89 Stat. 839) provides in Ch. V:

For the purpose of implementing the Japan-United States Friendship Act (Public Law 94-118), there is appropriated to the Japan-United States Friendship Trust Fund, to remain available until expended, $18,000,000 of the total funds payable to the United States pursuant to the Agreement Between Japan and the United States of America concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, signed at Washington and Tokyo, June 17, 1971. Funds appropriated under title I of Public Law 94-121 for United States-Japan Friendship Activities are transferred to the Japan-United States Friendship Trust Fund for the purpose of implementing the Japan-United States Friendship Act (Public Law 94-118) and are to remain available until expended.

Chapter 13

PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

81

Negotiation; Inquiry; Conciliation; Mediation;
Good Offices

General

Law of the Sea

At the close of the 1975 session of the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea which met at Geneva from March 19 to May 9, 1975, the President of the Conference presented an informal single negotiating text on "Settlement of Disputes," in order to facilitate the process of future negotiation. The text was based to a considerable extent on the work of the Informal Group on the Settlement of Disputes, and was intended to blend, within the limits of practicality, the essence of various alternative proposals that had been made. The text contains general provisions on dispute settlement, plus annexes on conciliation, arbitration, and the Statute of the Law of the Sea Tribunal; annexes on special procedures for disputes on fisheries, pollution, and scientific research; and an annex on information and consultation. It also has a procedure for permitting states to elect one or more of the compulsory settlement mechanisms provided.

Throughout the Law of the Sea negotiations, the United States had consistently taken the position that compulsory dispute settlement provisions were essential in any comprehensive treaty on the subject, and it had proposed the creation of a new oceans tribunal with broad jurisdiction to deal with such disputes. See the 1973 Digest, pp. 468-470, and the 1974 Digest, pp. 674-681. Following the Geneva session, members of the U.S. delegation expressed some satisfaction with the progress made there on the question of dispute settlement. John Norton Moore, Deputy Special Representative of the President for the U.N. Conference on Law of the Sea, told a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on June 4, 1975:

I think it is fair to say we see a greater acceptance of the idea of genuine compulsory third-party disputes settlements in this Conference at the present time than we have seen in any . . . multilateral conference in recent years.

On the same date, Ambassador John R. Stevenson, Special Representative of the President for the U.N. Conference and head of the U.S. delegation at Geneva, summarized for the subcommittee the disputes settlement accomplishments of the session as follows:

In the dispute-settlement working group most states supported binding dispute-settlement procedures in areas of national jurisdiction although a minority opposed or wished to limit drastically their applicability, e.g., to navigation and pollution issues. Questions remain with respect to the relationship to coastal state resource jurisdiction and the scope and type of the dispute settlement mechanism. A compromise proposal permitting states to elect between three dispute settlement mechanisms-i.e., the International Court of Justice, arbitration, or a special law of the sea tribunal-was acceptable to the vast majority of participants. However, some delegations considered that their preferred mechanism should be compulsory in all cases, while others favor a functional approach-different machinery for different types of disputes. There was general support for special dispute machinery for the deep seabed.

The informal single negotiating text on settlement of disputes is at A/ CONF.62/WP.9, July 21, 1975. The statements quoted above by Mr. Moore and Ambassador Stevenson may be found in Hearing on Status Report on Law of the Sea Conference before the Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials and Fuels of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., June 4, 1975, pp. 1179 and 1173, respectively.

United Nations Charter

Monroe Leigh, Legal Adviser of the Department of State, made a statement in the Legal Committee at the United Nations on November 14, 1975, in which he said that the United States had fully reviewed its position with respect to Charter review and continued to regard the question with skepticism and concern. He pointed out that there was much to be done in the field of dispute settlement and prevention, and in terms of making the U.N. system more effective, which could be accomplished within the existing Charter. The following is an excerpt from his statement:

a major area of concern to all members of the United Nations, and an area where we might constructively concentrate our energies, is strengthening and development of measures for the peaceful settlement of disputes. There is . . . no doubt this can be done wholly within the existing language of