tions under the Act on March 31, 1966. The Commission considered approximately 10,000 claims and made 5,022 awards in the principal amount of $100.7 million. As each annual installment is received from the Government of Poland, it is paid in pro rata amounts to the award holders. The claims agreement of July 16, 1960, between the Governments of the United States and Poland was given widespread publicity by the Department of State. The initiation of a claims program to adjudicate the claims under such agreement was also given widespread coverage by the Commission. The Commission issued numerous press releases, communicated directly with various Polish organizations and Polish newspapers in the United States, and in all instances wrote directly to persons who had previously communicated with the Department of State about claims against Poland. The actions taken were in addition to a publication of notice in the Federal Register. Dept. of State File No. P80 0004-1643. French Spoliation Claims A constituent wrote to Congressman Tom Loeffler regarding allegedly unsettled claims of an ancestor against France for seizure of vessels in the late 1700's. Answering Congressman Loeffler's inquiry on behalf of his constituent, J. Brian Atwood, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, summarized the history of the French spoliation claims in a letter dated October 22, 1980, the substantive portion of which follows: The French spoliation claims arose out of the following facts. On February 6, 1778, the United States and France concluded a Treaty of Alliance [see, post] and a Treaty of Amity and Commerce of the same date [see, post] which provided that the United States would assist France to protect the French colonies in the West Indies in case of British attack. In 1793 France became involved in a war with Great Britain, but the United States did not fulfill the obligations of assistance under the 1778 treaties. The Jay Treaty was concluded with the United Kingdom on November 19, 1794, and was proclaimed on February 29, 1796 [see, post]. The treaties with France were abrogated by an Act of Congress of July 7, 1798. Thereupon France embarked upon a policy of reprisals and French privateers preyed upon American commerce. Negotiations for the settlement of claims of United States nationals were protracted. The treaty of September 30, 1800, between the United States and France in effect renounced as against each other their respective claims arising prior to July 31, 1801 [see, post]. By treaties concluded on April 30, 1803, and July 4, 1831, between the United States and France [see, post], and February 22, 1819, between the United States and Spain [see, post], provision was made for the settlement of certain classes of claims of American citizens arising out of French spoliations. No provision was made for the payment of certain claims of American citizens against France arising out of spoliations which occurred prior to July 31, 1801. Complete discussion of the diplomatic and legal history of the French spoliation claims is contained in 5 Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been a Party, pp. 4399-4518. The Act of Congress of January 20, 1885 (23 Stat. 283) conferred jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims of the United States to determine the liability of the United States for the French spoliation claims which arose prior to the ratification of the treaty between the United States and France of September 30, 1800, referred to above. An index of awards under the Act of January 20, 1885, and of the payments made thereunder was printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office in 1934, bearing No. 48029-34-1. The Congress of the United States has to date made four appropriations to pay these awards, as follows: All cases filed with the Court of Claims have been passed on and certified to the Congress. There remain, however, unpaid amounts totaling $3,240,019.34. Numerous attempts since 1905 to introduce legislation to pay the latter remaining unpaid claims have not been successful and failed to be enacted into law. Information with respect to any particular claim filed with the Court of Claims may be obtained from the Clerk of the United States Court of Claims, Washington, D.C. 20005, or from the National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, Washington, D.C. 20408. The inquiry should set forth the name of the original claimant, the name of the ship, the name of the master, and the date of capture. Dept. of State File No. P80 0140-2046. The Treaty of Alliance between the United States and France, signed at Paris, Feb. 6, 1778, may be found at T.S. 82; 8 Stat. 6; 7 Bevans, Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America [,] 1776-1949 (1971), p. 777, entered into force, July 17, 1778, declared abrogated by act of Congress approved July 7, 1798, 1 Stat. 578. The Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States and France, with annex, signed at Paris, Feb. 6, 1778, may be found at T.S. 83; 8 Stat. 12; 7 Bevans, Treaties, etc. (1971), p. 763; entered into force, July 17, 1778; declared abrogated by act of Congress approved July 7, 1798, 1 Stat. 578. The Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation between the United States and the United Kingdom (the Jay Treaty), signed at London, Nov. 19, 1794, with annexed letter dated at Philadelphia, Sept. 5, 1793, and with additional article may be found at T.S. 105; 8 Stat. 116; 12 Bevans, Treaties, etc. (1074), p. 13; entered into force, Oct. 28, 1795; a subsequent history of various articles is at ibid. The Convention of Friendship and Commerce between the United States and France, signed at Paris, Sept. 30, 1800, with additional article and provisos, is at T.S. 85; 8 Stat. 178; 7 Bevans, Treaties, etc. (1971), p. 801; entered into force, July 31, 1801; expired by its limitations, July 31, 1809. The Claims Convention between the United States and France, signed at Paris, Apr. 30, 1803, is at T.S. 86-B; 8 Stat. 208; 7 Bevans, Treaties, etc. (1971), p. 818; entered into force, Oct. 21, 1803; terminated "upon fulfillment of its terms" (see, ibid.). The Convention on Claims and Duties on Wines and Cotton between the United States and France, signed at Paris, July 4, 1831, is at T.S. 88; 8 Stat. 430; 7 Bevans, Treaties, etc. (1971), p. 826. The Treaty of Amity, Settlement, and Limits between the United States and Spain, signed at Washington, Feb. 22, 1819, is at T.S. 327; 8 Stat. 252; 11 Bevans, Treaties, etc. (1974), p. 528; entered into force, Feb. 22, 1821; terminated, Apr. 14, 1903, by treaty of July 3, 1902. General §3 §2 Substantive Bases for International Claims Claims Settlement Agreements In an instruction to all United States diplomatic and consular posts, dated July 10, 1980, the Department of State reviewed United States policy in expropriation disputes and suggested guidelines for the posts to follow in assisting United States nationals experiencing investment disputes with the host country, some of which might lead to expropriation. The United States Government's expropriation policy objective, the message explained, is: to minimize expropriation and to ensure that U.S. investors receive prompt, adequate (normally fair market value, preferably based on "going concern" valuation. . . ) and effective compensation when it occurs. One aspect of this policy is appropriate USG involvement on behalf of U.S. investors both in expropriation cases and in disputes which have serious expropriation potential, to seek fair and effective means of resolving such disputes as early as practicable, including negotiation, arbitration, or other agreed means U.S. involvement in each dispute must be appropriate to the circumstances of the case, and consistent with U.S. interests and practice in other cases pending in that country and elsewhere. For example, non-involvement may be appropriate for minor technical disputes where it is likely that the investor and the host government can resolve the dispute on their own. Conversely, vigorous USG action may well be appropriate when the host government, for avowed political reasons, seizes an investor's property, indicating that it will not pay compensation. The Department outlined the theoretical stages of an investment dispute and possible United States Government actions, both at Washington and at the post, at the various stages. It pointed out, however, that not every investment dispute would correspond to the listed stages, nor would disputes necessarily follow the progression from one stage to the next. But, the Department stated, reviewing a particular investment dispute in the context of the analytical framework set out in the message would "help insure that we do not overlook possible USG actions, and promote consistency in our expropriation policy implementation." The listed actions were not required, nor did they exhaust the possibilities; they merely suggested the types of actions that might be appropriate at a given stage of the dispute. The suggested types of action corresponded to four possible stages of a dispute: (1) an investment dispute short of an expropriation; (2) an investment dispute short of an expropriation that fails to be satisfactorily resolved or otherwise gives some indication of having expropriation potential; (3) an expropriation occurs; and (4) the host government does not pay prompt, adequate, and effective compensation for expropriated property. The message also included a background statement for investors seeking information about United States Government assistance, that contained, as well, a checklist of information to be provided by the investor. The statement follows: INVESTMENT DISPUTES: USG ASSISTANCE FOR U.S. INVESTORS ABROAD Investment disputes occur in a wide variety of forms and circumstances, and differing degrees of seriousness. In some cases they result in expropriation of property belonging to U.S. citizens or other actions which may have an equivalent effect, such as coerced participation by local investors, cancellation or forced renegotiation of contracts or concession agreements, and confiscatory taxation. The U.S. Government recognizes the sovereign right of a country to expropriate foreign property provided the taking is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, for a public purpose, in accordance with due process, and not in violation of specific contractual undertakings with the investor. However, such actions raise host government obligations to provide just compensation under international law, including in many cases specific bilateral treaties such as U.S. Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation Treaties. Fulfillment of these obligations is required by U.S. laws relating to economic assistance, preferential trade benefits, and U.S. support for loans in multilateral development banks. The objective of USG expropriation policy is to minimize investment disputes and to ensure that U.S. investors receive prompt, adequate, and effective compensation if expropriation occurs. Investment disputes are monitored by an Interagency Staff Coordinating Group on Expropriation, which was established in 1972. The Director of the Office of Investment Affairs in the State Department serves as the Expropriation Group's Staff Director, and the Office provides staff support for the Group. Agencies represented on the Expropriation Group include the representatives of State, Treasury, Commerce, Defense, the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. Trade Representative, the International Development Cooperation Agency, including the Agency for International Development and Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Office of Management and Budget. The Expropriation Group meets regularly to review developments in expropriation cases, and to determine appropriate U.S. Government responses. U.S. Government involvement in investment disputes, in the first instance, emphasizes facilitative assistance-for example, encouraging and arranging useful discussions between the investor and the host government, providing local attorney lists, and bringing claimants together who wish to pool resources in pursuing their claims. At this stage the U.S. Government as a rule does not take a position on the merits of a particular claim, or become directly involved in negotiations between the investor and the host government. However, it is important for the U.S. Government to have a full understanding of the facts surrounding each expropriation case. Investors who wish U.S. Government assistance concerning investment disputes should provide the following information to the Office of Investment Affairs, Room 2533A, Department of State, Washington, D.C. 20520: 1. Reasonable evidence of U.S. ownership of affected investment including information on U.S. citizenship; effective nationality of owners in dual nationality cases; extent of U.S. beneficial interest in claim; continuous U.S. ownership of claim; place of incorporation of affected company; ownership and place of incorporation of companies in chain of ownership. 2. Details of acquisition of property or enterprise's establishment; compliance with requirements of local law; relevant licenses, agreements with host government. 3. Description of nature and history of dispute. 4. Statement of value of property and supporting evidence. 6. Chronology of investor efforts to resolve the problem directly Dept. of State circular airgram No. A-1324, July 10, 1980, encl. No. 2, Dept. of State File No. P80 0094-0295. Vietnam: United States Legislation On December 28, 1980, President Carter approved as Public Law 96-606, 94 Stat. 3534, 22 U.S.C. 1645-16450, legislation amending the |