Parties, provided that objections to the amendments are not received from more than one-third of the Parties during that 1-year period. The Article provides for two methods of proposing amendments: first, by communication from a Party to the Secretary General of IMCO followed by the consideration within IMCO's Maritime Safety Committee (operating on a two-thirds majority) or, second, by a conference called for by at least one-third of the Contracting Parties to consider a possible amendment (again operating on a two-thirds majority). Article IV deals with the manner in which states may become parties to the Convention. It provides for the deposit of instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Secretary General of IMCO. Article V provides for the entry into force of the Convention 12 months after the date upon which 15 States have become Parties to it. Article VI deals with denunciation, providing that any party may withdraw from the Convention 5 years after the date upon which the Convention has entered into force for it. Such denunciation becomes effective 1 year after its receipt by the Secretary General, unless a longer period is specified. Article VII provides for the deposit of the Convention with the Secretary General of IMCO and for its registration and publication with the United Nations. Article VIII designates the official languages of the Convention. The Annex to the Convention sets forth the general obligations of the Contracting Parties with regard to search and rescue operations and specific provisions for coordination of and cooperation in the planning and conduct of such search and rescue missions. Most of the provisions of the Annex are self-explanatory. Chapter 1 of the Annex sets forth the terms and definitions used in the Annex. In addition to defining specific terms this chapter also indicates how to distinguish between those undertakings which are mandatory and those which are recommendatory. Chapter 2 of the Annex sets forth the basic obligations undertaken by the Parties with regard to ensuring adequate search and rescue services in marine areas off their coasts. The Parties pledge themselves to a commitment to ensure adequate search and rescue services for persons in distress around their coasts. The Parties undertake to provide information on those services to the Secretary General of IMCO who, in turn, shall transmit such information to all Parties. The chapter also provides for the establishment of search and rescue regions by agreement among the Parties. Again, this information is to be provided to the IMCO Secretary General, who informs all Parties of such arrangements. The Parties commit themselves to ensure that assistance be provided for any person in distress at sea, regardless of the nationality, status of such person, or the circumstances in which that person is found. This latter obligation, in our view, reflects the basic obligations under existing international law to render assistance to those in distress. Chapter 2 also provides for the Parties to take steps to coordinate the search and rescue facilities around their coasts; to designate rescue coordination centers and subcenters; to designate specific rescue units or organizations; and to ensure that these units are provided with certain standard facilities and equipment. Chapter 3 sets forth the obligations of the Parties to cooperate in search and rescue activities. The Parties are obligated to coordinate their search and rescue organizations and to coordinate search and rescue operations with those of neighboring states. The chapter further calls for prompt response and communication among the Parties in the event of a search and rescue operation, including the manner in which the search and rescue units of one party may enter the jurisdiction of another Party. The chapter also provides for coordination between marine and air search and rescue services of the Parties. Chapter 4 deals with preparatory measures which each rescue coordination center and subcenter should undertake. These include a requirement for maintenance of up-to-date information regarding resources at their disposal and their state of readiness; means of regular and emergency communication. Each rescue coordination center or subcenter is also required to maintain upto-date and detailed operational plans and instructions for the conduct of operations in its area. The chapter finally provides that each designated rescue unit maintain an appropriate level of preparedness and keep the appropriate rescue coordination center or subcenter informed of its readiness status. Chapter 5 sets forth, in detail, operational procedures to be followed by the Parties when search and rescue situations arise. The chapter defines three emergency phases: the uncertainty phase, when a vessel is overdue or when contact with it has been lost; the alert phase, when efforts to establish contact with a vessel or other inquiries have failed to ascertain its location when information has been received that a vessel's operation has been impaired; and, the distress phase, when there is specific information or sufficient reason to believe that a vessel or person is in grave or imminent danger and in need of immediate assistance. The remainder of Chapter 5 sets forth the operating procedures, including the communications and other information requirements to be taken by rescue coordination centers, subcenters and designated rescue units in the three emergency phases identified above. The chapter provides for coordination among Parties when two or more are involved, and for the designation of on-scene commanders to oversee individual search and rescue operations. The chapter covers these procedures from the initiation of search and rescue activities through their successful or unsuccessful termination. Chapter 6 recommends the establishment of ship reporting systems designed to provide a mechanism for sharing up-to-date information on the location of vessels, so that it will be possible to identify, as quickly and accurately as possible, vessels which are overdue or may be in distress or otherwise encountering difficulty. Ibid., pp. 3-5. TIAS ; entered into force, June 22, 1985. Chapter 8 §1 Public Air Law ICAO Convention: Protocols of Amendment Leased, Chartered, or Interchanged Aircraft On October 6, 1980, the International Civil Aviation Organization Assembly, meeting at Montreal in its 23d session, approved a Protocol Relating to an Amendment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, done at Chicago, December 7, 1944 (TIAS 1591; 61 Stat. 1180; entered into force, April 4, 1947). The 1980 Protocol permits a State in which an aircraft is registered to transfer certain of its functions and duties under the 1944 Convention to the State in which an operator leasing, chartering, or interchanging that aircraft has his principal place of business or permanent residence, subject to the agreement of the latter State. Article 83 bis, added to the 1944 Convention by the 1980 Protocol, authorizes the State of registry to delegate (transfer) to such State any or all of its responsibilities under Convention Articles 12 (Rules of the Air), 30 (Aircraft Radio Equipment), 31 (Certificate of Airworthiness), and 32(a) (Licenses of Personnel). The 1980 Protocol to the Convention originated in a 1971 United States proposal that was made to increase safety in international flight operations and was the first amendment to the Convention of a substantive nature. On Jan. 19, 1981, President Carter transmitted the 1980 Protocol to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. S. Treaty Doc. 97-4, 97th Cong., 1st sess. (1981). On Sept. 29, 1981, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on: (1) the 1980 Protocol Relating to an Amendment to the International Civil Aviation Convention, ante; (2) a Protocol of Amendment to the Convention, adding Russian to the languages in which there could be authentic Convention texts, and a related Protocol on the Authentic Quadrilingual Text of the Convention, annexing a Russian language text of the Convention that had been thoroughly conformed with the existing authentic English, French, and Spanish texts, both Protocols having been done at Montreal, Sept. 30, 1977 (see the 1979 Digest, pp. 1123-1124, and the 1977 Digest, pp. 401-404); and (3) Montreal Protocols 3 and 4 to the 1929 Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air, as amended, done at Montreal, Sept. 25, 1975 (see the 1976 Digest, pp. 407-410). See, Civil Aviation Protocols: Hearing before the Sen. Comm. on For. Rel., 97th Cong., 1st sess. (1981). On Dec. 9, 1981, the Committee reported favorably on the 1980 Protocol Relating to an Amendment to the ICAO Convention and the two 1977 Protocols thereto. S. Ex. Rept. 97-41 ("Three Aviation Protocols"), 97th Cong., 1st sess. (1981). On Dec. 16, 1981, the Senate gave its advice and consent to the three Protocols. Cong. Rec., Vol. 127 (daily ed. Dec. 16, 1981), p. S15533. On Dec. 16, 1981, the Committee reported separately on Montreal Protocols 3 and 4, supporting their ratification with the understanding that a Supplemental Compensation Plan would be in place to increase the recoveries available to United States citizens. S. Ex. Rept. 97-45, 97th Cong., 1st sess. (1981). Since the Montreal Protocols were still pending at adjournment of the 97th Congress, they were re-referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations under Senate rules. The Committee again reported them favorably with conditions, on Feb. 3, 1983. Its report set out the background to the Montreal Protocols, summarized several court decisions regarding the Warsaw Convention since its 1981 report, and included a letter from Powell A. Moore, Asst. Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, to Senator Charles H. Percy, the Committee Chairman, dated Oct. 6, 1982, reiterating the Reagan Administration's support for Montreal Protocols Nos. 3 and 4. S. Ex. Rept. 98-1 ("Montreal Aviation Protocols, Nos. 3 & 4"), 98th Cong., 1st sess. (1983). See, also, a joint letter to Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker, Jr. from Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Hanford Dole and Secretary of State George P. Shultz, dated Mar. 7, 1983, regarding the liability limit established by the Protocols, the fluctuating value of the Special Drawing Rights (SDR's) proposed to replace gold for setting treaty liability amounts under the Protocols, and the Domestic Compensation Plan. Cong. Rec., Vol. 129, No. 27, Mar. 8, 1983 (daily ed.), p. S2278. On Mar. 8, 1983, the Senate, nevertheless, rejected the Montreal Protocols, by a vote of 50-42-1 ("present")-7 (not voting). Ibid., p. S2279. See, further, In re Aircrash in Bali, Indonesia on April 22, 1974, 684 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1982), and Franklin Mint Corporation v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 690 F.2d 303 (2d Cir. 1982), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 466 U.S. 243 (1984). A United States brief amicus filed in the last-referenced case also may be found at Dept. of State File No. P85 0194-0307. §2 Bilateral Agreements Air Transport Agreements United States-Belgium On October 23, 1980, the United States and Belgium concluded a new Air Transport Agreement through an exchange of notes in Washington; TIAS 9903; 32 U.S.T. 3515; entered into force, October 23, 1980. Prior to the 1980 Agreement, civil aviation relations between the two countries had been governed by the Air Services Agreement of April 5, 1946 (60 Stat. 1585; TIAS 1515; 5 Bevans 620; entered into force, April 5, 1946); the Agreement amending the Air Services Agreement of April 5, 1946 and extending the Memorandum of Understanding of October 17, 1972, as amended and renewed by exchange of notes, October 24 and November 16, 1977 (TIAS 8923; 29 U.S.T. 2027; entered into force, November 16, 1977); and the related Protocol initialled December 8, 1978, effected by exchange of notes, December 12 and 14, 1978 (TIAS 9207; 30 U.S.T. 617; entered into force, December 14, 1978). The principal purpose of the new Agreement was to consolidate and revise the provisions of these earlier agreements so as to produce one comprehensive document. The 1978 Protocol had established the most liberal bilateral air services regime ever negotiated by the United States. The provisions of the Protocol became the United States model for subsequent civil aviation negotiations and embodied the following key elements: (1) open routes for United States airlines via any intermediate points to all points in the other country and beyond, without geographic or directional limitation; (2) unlimited rights of designation for scheduled and charter services; (3) no capacity limitations; (4) full operational flexibility for airlines, including all types of change of gauge and full coterminal rights; (5) mutual disapproval pricing, including price leadership by third-country airlines in the bilateral market and by United States or Belgian airlines in each other's fifthfreedom (third country) markets; and (6) country-of-origin charter rules, including the right for an airline to follow its home country charter rules or, if different, those of the country of traffic origin. These provisions are maintained in the 1980 Agreement. The 1980 Agreement authorizes Belgian airlines to serve New York, Atlanta, and three other United States cities of its choice. Belgian airlines are also granted traffic rights between: (1) any one of these cities chosen by Belgium and a point beyond in Canada chosen by Belgium; and (2) any one of these cities chosen by Belgium and Mexico City. Points chosen by Belgium may be changed upon 60 days' notice. The Agreement also authorizes Belgian airlines to operate scheduled and charter cargo services to any point in the United States. United States-Chile -J.R.B. On May 9, 1980, Malcolm R. Barnebey, Director of the Office of Andean Affairs in the Department of State's Bureau of InterAmerican Affairs, testified before the Subcommittee on Government Activities and Transportation of the House Committee on Government Operations about United States responses to the Chilean Government's failure to extradite, prosecute, or seriously investigate three ex-officials of the Chilean Directorate of National Intelligence (DINA). In 1978, a Federal grand jury in the District of Columbia had indicted the three together with several other persons, in connection with the 1976 assassination of Orlando Letelier and Mrs. Ronni Karpen Moffitt. (See this Digest, Ch. 2, §1, ante.) The Subcommittee was investigating alleged violations of United States aviation laws and regulations by Linea Aerea Nacional de |