or the posting of bond is believed to have differed from or to be less advantageous than the treatment which American nationals were accorded by American courts in analogous circumstances, the Department suggests that the facts surrounding such instances be brought to the attention of the American officials with whom the visiting French experts will be meeting during their planned visit to the United States. As the Embassy may be aware, it is within the exclusive power of the individual American States to deal with the administrative aspects of child custody and child support, and court actions on such matters are brought before the courts of the several States. The uniform acts mentioned in the Embassy's note have been enacted by the state legislatures of most of the several States. While these state laws are based on the uniform acts developed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws they do not represent federal legislation and have frequently been enacted with at least minor changes. The note from the Embassy of France and the Department's reply may be found at Dept. of State File Nos. P80 0067-1056 and 0075-1791. A procès-verbal of the discussions that took place in Washington from July 1-3, 1980, is at ibid., P81 0061-2135 through 0061-2142. An English language version of the minutes of the discussions, dated July 3, 1980, and also signed by Bruno A. Ristau for the United States and Jean-Dominique Paolini for France, may be found at International Legal Materials, Vol. 20 (1981), pp. 1402-1403. At the request of the French delegation, the Department agreed to an exchange of letters that would confirm the United States Government's permission for a French delegation to discuss arrangements for reciprocal child support and custody decree assistance with competent State authorities. Department officials cautioned that no "compacts" or agreements could be entered into purporting to create legal obligations between an individual State and France. Parallel declarations of policy and official determinations that the other jurisdiction accorded or would accord reciprocal enforcement action were, however, permissible under the Constitution of the United States. The letters exchanged were each dated August 20, 1980, and were signed, respectively, on behalf of the Secretary of State by Peter H. Pfund, Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, and on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France by the Chief of the Department of Reciprocal Agreements, Minister Jean-Dominique Paolini. Each included the following substantive paragraphs: Considering that the issues relating to child custody, visitation rights and the enforcement of support orders come within the jurisdiction of the individual States of the United States, It is agreed that a French delegation will contact the competent authorities of the States for the purpose of drawing up declarations of reciprocity or equivalence for the enforcement of legal decisions relating to child custody, visitation rights and the collection of child support payments. Dept. of State File Nos. P81 0061-2143 through 0061-2146; see, also, International Legal Materials, Vol. 20 (1981), p. 1401. See, further, for notices concerning Franco-American reciprocity regarding family support, child custody, and visitation rights, ibid., Vol. 21 (1982), pp. 430-438. The Convention of Establishment, with protocol and joint declaration, between the United States and France, signed at Paris, Nov. 25, 1959, may be found at TIAS 4625; 11 UST 2398; entered into force, Dec. 21, 1960. For the Department of State's reply, dated Aug. 22, 1980, to an inquiry from the Embassy of Portugal, dated April 29, 1980, regarding agreements with provisions similar to those contained in the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1968), see Dept. of State File No. P80 0115-2088, in reply to ibid., No. P80 0063-0526. In response to an inquiry from the Dept. of State, the National Reciprocal and Family Support Enforcement Association (Des Moines, Iowa) stated in a letter dated Dec. 23, 1983, that all the States and territories of the United States had statutory authority providing for reciprocity with foreign jurisdictions except Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Dept. of State File No. P84 0002-2167. Bilateral Agreements United States-Algeria An exchange of letters at Washington, dated May 22, 1980, between Philip B. Heymann, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, and Mohammed S. Mohammedi, Secretary General, Ministry of Justice of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria, set out terms and conditions for mutual cooperation between the two agencies in connection with their respective investigations of the activities in Algeria of International Systems and Controls Corporation and International Telephone & Telegraph Company, their affiliates and subsidiaries. The parties agreed that each would use its best efforts to make available to the other relevant and material information, such as statements, depositions, documents, business records, correspondence, or other materials, concerning alleged illicit acts pertaining to such activities. On request, each would provide the other with information for use in legal proceedings and would use its best efforts to furnish such information in a form admissible under the rules of evidence of the requesting state. This included, but was not limited to, certifications, authentications, and other assistance to provide the foundation for admissibility of evidence. Each would give the other advance notice and afford an opportunity for consultation, if requested, prior to using in public legal proceedings information that the other had made available. The two agencies would assist each other in locating and interviewing witnesses, taking testimony or statements, or obtaining documents or other materials. Representatives of the requesting state might participate in the execution of any request upon the consent of the competent authority of the requested state. Neither state would be obligated as part of such assistance to immunize any person from prosecution. Each party would use its best efforts in the expeditious execution of letters rogatory issued by judicial authorities in connection with any ensuing legal proceedings that resulted from the respective investigations. All assistance was to be performed subject to the limitations set by each party's respective laws, and might be postponed, denied, or made subject to conditions to be agreed upon, if it would interfere with an ongoing investigation or legal proceeding in the requested state. Each party would be free to use independently obtained information for any purpose. Assistance was to be solely for the benefit of the respective law enforcement agencies of the two countries, and access by other law enforcement agencies to such information was to be subject to the terms of the exchange of letters. Information exchanged between the two agencies was to be held confidentially, to be used exclusively for investigation by law enforcement agencies in criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings. TIAS 9780; 32 UST 1411; entered into force, May 22, 1980. A further exchange of letters between the same two officials, under date of Dec. 18, 1980, at Washington, extended the terms and conditions of their earlier letters to include alleged illicit acts pertaining to the activities of Inforex, Inc., and its subsidiaries and affiliates. TIAS 9960; 32 UST 4491; entered into force, Dec. 18, 1980. United States-Colombia Two exchanges of letters at Washington between Assistant Attorney General Philip B. Heymann, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, and Ambassador Virgilio Barco of Colombia, dated July 7/July 15, 1980, and August 28/September 10, 1980, extended the two Governments' Agreement on Procedures for Mutual Assistance in the Administration of Justice in Connection with the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation matter, signed at Washington, April 22, 1976 (TIAS 8244; 27 UST 1059; entered into force, April 22, 1976), to include Textron, Inc., and Bethlehem Steel Corporation, respectively. TIAS 9809; 32 UST 1921; entered into force, July 15, 1980; and TIAS 9860; 32 UST 2599; entered into force, Sept. 10, 1980. In regard to the 1976 Agreement with Colombia (and similar agreements that year with other countries), see the 1976 Digest, pp. 313-316. United States-Turkey An exchange of letters at Washington between Philip B. Heymann, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, and Ambassador Sukpu Elekdag of the Republic of Turkey, dated July 8 and 15, 1980, extended for an additional year the Agreement (concluded between the U.S. Department of Justice and the Turkish Ministry of Justice) on Procedures for Mutual Assistance in the Administration of Justice in Connection with the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation and the McDonnell Douglas Corporation Matters, signed at Washington, July 8, 1976 (TIAS 8371; 27 UST 3419; entered into force, July 8, 1976), as extended and as amended. The 1976 Agreement had subsequently been extended (renewed) by exchanges of letters at Washington, between Assistant Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti, and Ambassador Melih Esenbel, dated Dec. 6, 1977, and between Assistant Attorney General Heymann and Ambassador Esenbel, dated July 18 and 19, 1978 (both extensions included in TIAS 9006; 29 UST 3203; entered into force, respectively, Dec. 6, 1977, and July 19, 1978). In 1979, two exchanges of letters between Assistant Attorney General Heymann and Ambassador Esenbel, each exchange dated June 18 and June 26, 1979, covered: as to the first, the extension of the operation of the 1976 Agreement to include alleged illicit acts pertaining to activities in Turkey of the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation and its subsidiaries and/or affiliates; and as to the second, the annual extension (renewal) of the 1976 Agreement. TIAS 9539; 30 UST 6072; and TIAS 9540; 30 UST 6076; entered into force (both, June 26, 1979). See, also, the 1977 Digest, pp. 471-477, 500-501, and the 1978 Digest, pp. 850-851, 857. United States-Federal Republic of Germany In an exchange of notes at Bonn, October 17, 1979, and February 1, 1980, the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany confirmed that their bilateral agreement relating to the taking of evidence, concluded by exchange of notes at Bad Godesberg and Bonn, February 11, 1955, January 13, 1956, and October 8, 1956, continued to be valid after the 1970 Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters had entered into force for the Federal Republic of Germany on June 26, 1979. Under the earlier exchange of notes (printed with the 1979/1980 agreement, and printed in part in Whiteman, Digest of International Law, Vol. 7(1970), pp. 579-580, and Vol. 6 (1968), pp. 221-222) United States consular officers were permitted to question German or other non-American citizens in the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance with conditions laid down by the Federal Republic, including reciprocity. These conditions, repeated in the 1979/1980 exchange of notes, follow: (1) that no compulsion is brought to bear on the person to be questioned to make him appear or provide information, more specifically, (a) that the request to provide information is not called a "sum- (2) that the questioning only takes place in the home, office or shop of persons to be questioned if said persons expressly ask to be questioned there or expressly state their agreement with this form of questioning; (3) that the person to be questioned has the possibility of having himself accompanied by a lawyer. TIAS 9938; entered into force, Feb. 1, 1980. The Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, done at The Hague, Mar. 18, 1970, may be found at TIAS 7444; 23 UST 2555; entered into force, Oct. 7, 1972. §7 Sovereign Immunity Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Minimum Jurisdictional Contacts Paterson, Zochonis (U.K.) Ltd. v. Compania United Arrow, S.A., 493 F.Supp. 621 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), was a consolidated action brought by plaintiff cargo interests, all foreign corporations, seeking to recover from, among others, China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) for cargo loss caused by the sinking of the M/V Sea Queen I off the coast of South Africa in 1977. China Ocean Shipping Company, a Chinese Government entity, had shipped the cargo from Foochow and Dairen in the People's Republic of China to Lagos, Nigeria, via transshipment at Hong Kong. On January 30, 1980, District Judge Leonard B. Sand denied the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment and granted COSCO's motion to dismiss the claims against it on grounds of immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. Judge Sand found that: (1) the suit was "not based upon either COSCO's commercial activity in the United States, whatever its scope, or upon any act it performed in this country"; (2) that the events surrounding the lawsuits had had no direct effect in the United States; and (3) the Act's commercial activity exceptions did not otherwise apply. |