Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

controlled foreign firms who are sent to Cuba by their employers to negotiate trade transactions which qualify under paragraph (aX1) or (a3). In the case of American citizen employees of such foreign firms, travel expenditures will only be authorized in those cases where the employee's passport has been validated by the Department of State for travel to Cuba for business purposes.

(3) Importation of goods of Cuban origin into countries in the authorized trade territory, provided the licensee hereunder is itself located in the importing country.

(b) The term “strategic goods” means any item, regardless of origin, of a type included in the Commodity Control List of the U.S. Department of Commerce (15 CFR Part 399) and identified by the code letter “A” following the Export Control Commodity Numbers, or of a type the unauthorized exportation of which from the U.S. is prohibited by regulations issued under section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 848; 22 C.S.C. 1934) relating to arms, ammunitions, and implements of war, or under sections 53 a), 62, 82(c), 103 and 104 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1921; 42 U.S.C. 2011-2296), as amended (Supp. III, 1965–1967), relating to atomic energy facilities or materials for non-military purposes.

See Fed. Reg., Vol. 40, No. 196, Oct. 8, 1975, p. 47108.

National Emergency Authorities

Mark B. Feldman, Deputy Legal Adviser of the Department of State, testified on April 9, 1975, before the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the House Committee on the Judiciary, on H.R. 3884, a bill “to terminate certain authorities with respect to national emergencies still in effect and to provide for orderly implementation and termination of future national emergencies.” He expressed the support of the Department of State for section 602 of the bill which would preserve essential authorities. The following is an excerpt from Mr. Feldman's statement:

The Department of State is primarily concerned with section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, which provides the basic legal authority for a number of programs of major foreign policy importance. These include:

Foreign Assets Control Regulations
Cuban Asset Control Regulations
Foreign Funds Control Regulations

Under these programs, transactions are prohibited which involve persons or property subject to U.S. jurisdiction and which take place with Cuba, North Viet-Nam, North Korea, and designated nationals of those countries, unless specifically or generally licensed. In addition, property in which those countries or their nationals have an interest has been blocked and is under U.S. Government control. We also are holding assets of the People's Republic of China blocked before May 1971 and

[ocr errors]

assets of certain Eastern European countries. While the amounts of the blocked assets vary, in some cases it is substantial; for example, possibly in excess of $80 million in the case of the People's Republic of China.

an interruption of these programs would seriously prejudice the foreign relations interests of the United States and the interests of thousands of American nationals with outstanding claims against Cuba and the People's Republic of China. One effect of such interruption would be to release the blocked assets. Another would be to authorize transactions now prohibited without regard for the state of U.S. relations with countries concerned or the underlying U.S. interests served by these programs. Thus, for example, Cuban imports could come into the United States without regard to other economic issues, and the relaxation of transaction controls with respect to North VietNam would be without regard to any context of improved bilateral relations. As a result it would become very difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate satisfactory claim settlements, or to realize other U.S. objectives.

The Department wishes to stress that these are merely the current programs under section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act and the 1950 proclamation of national emergency. This authority has been utilized in the past for programs which have served their purposes and been terminated, and it may be necessary again. The present international situation has the potential for serious difficulties in international fiscal and economic matters, particularly in the energy area, which may call for measures requiring recourse to this authority. Therefore the Department believes it is essential that section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act be specifically exempted as section 602 now provides.

The Department has not opposed, and does not oppose, the replacement of section 5(b) by other permanent legislation. We do believe, however, that there are a number of serious legal and policy questions in connection with any such legislation that will require protracted congressional consideration, and we are convinced that it would be highly imprudent to cast away the authority of section 5(b) without any assurance of such a replacement.

Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXII, No. 1873, May 19, 1975, pp. 651-652. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Mar. 6, 13, 19, and Apr. 9, 1975, pp. 81-88.

H.R. 3884 passed the House of Representatives on Sept. 4, 1975. Sec. 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended (P.L. 65-91; 40 Stat. 415) was amended and restated by $ 301 of P.L. 77-354 (55 Stat. 839; 12 U.S.C. 95a). National Emergency Proclamation No. 2914 of Dec. 16, 1950, is at 15 Fed. Reg. 9029.

§ 6 Debt Rescheduling

Bilateral Agreements

U.S.-India

On May 2, 1975, the United States and India signed an agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling of certain debts owed to the U.S. Government and its agencies (TIAS 8082; 26 UST 950; entered into force June 13, 1975). Under it the United States rescheduled $45 million in Indian debt service falling due during the Indian fiscal year ending March 31, 1975. The $45 million represented about 31 percent of Indian debt service falling due to the United States in the year. India made payments to the United States of approximately $100 million over the same period.

The agreement implemented an understanding reached with India by the World Bank, in its capacity as chairman of the Aid-toIndia Consortium, on October 30, 1974. It defers payment due on 49 Agency for International Development loans over an approximate seven-month period. Repayments are to be made over a 25-year period including seven years grace with an interest rate of 1.72 percent, which is the average weighted interest in the original agreements covered.

The Record of Understanding of Oct. 30, 1974, is at TIAS 8082, pp. 10–11.

U.S-Chile

A debt rescheduling agreement between the United States and Chile was signed on July 3, 1975; entered into force September 8, 1975. The agreement establishes basic terms for rescheduling payment of the U.S. share of Chile's debts being deferred in accordance with an understanding reached by representatives of certain creditor nations on May 6, 1975 (Paris Club agreement), and agreed to by the Government of Chile on May 8, 1975. It covers certain debt payments of Chile which came due between January 1 and December 31, 1975, arising out of a series of transactions by agencies of the U.S. Government.

The consolidated debt amounting to $67.2 million is to be repaid in 13 equal semi-annual installments beginning January 1, 1978, and ending January 1, 1984, with the consolidated interest rate at a weighted average of 6.16 percent per year on the outstanding balance. The nonconsolidated debt amounting to $28.8 million is to be repaid in installments of 33/3 percent in each of the years 1975, 1976, and 1977.

For the 1975 Paris Club agreement, see Dept. of State File L/T.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

A proposal for formulating a new "Model Law for Developing Countries on Inventions and Know-How" was on the agenda of the Second Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Permanent Committee for the Acquisition by Developing Countries of Technology Related to Industrial Property, which met at Geneva March 17-21, 1975. The Model Law is intended to serve as a basis for change and modernization of national and regional laws and institutions of developing countries in the fields of industrial property and transfer of technology. The Permanent Committee decided that preparation of such a law should go forward parallel to the work of revising the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (TIAS 6923; 21 UST 1583; entered into force August 25, 1973). The U.S. Delegation, under the chairmanship of Harvey J. Winter, Director of the Office of Business Practices, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Department of State, urged that any proposed Model Law draft be made available to all countries members of the Permanent Committee, not merely to developing countries.

The U.S. Delegation also supported coordination of the activities of the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the U.N. Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and WIPO in the field of transfer of technology to developing countries. It expressed the U.S. intent to cooperate in the training of at least four to six representatives of developing countries in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In the U.S. Delegation Report on the Session, Mr. Winter said, in part:

WIPO, in carrying out this program is providing a type of assistance to developing countries which ultimately should be highly beneficial to U.S. businessmen in their licensing activities. It is important that these countries be guided by a model law representing an ideal pattern for measures adequate to encourage inflows of technology, while maintaining reasonable protection for proprietary rights of foreign owners of technology. The training programs for developing countries' personnel in such matters as technology retrieval, licensing administration, negotiation and conclusion of agreements, and establishment of document reference centers should also enhance U.S. business activities.

Dept. of State File No. P75 0082-2400.

See also Report of the WIPO Permanent Committee for the Acquisition by Developing countries of Technology Related to Industrial Property, WIPO Doc. AT/PC/II/13, Mar. 31, 1975.

Patents

On November 14, 1975, President Ford signed Public Law 94–131 "To carry into effect certain provisions of the Patent Cooperation Treaty, and for other purposes" (89 Stat. 685; 35 U.S.C. 351 et seq.). The Patent Cooperation Treaty, done at Washington on June 19, 1970, had been approved, subject to three declarations, by the U.S. Senate on October 30, 1973. Following enactment of the implementing legislation, the U.S. instrument of ratification was deposited on November 26, 1975. It was subject to declarations under Articles 64(1)(a), 64(3Xa), and 64(47a), and extended to all territo ries for which the United States has international responsibility. For a summary of the provisions of the Treaty and the U.S. declarations, see the 1973 Digest, pp. 392-394.

Public Law 94–131, which becomes effective on the entry into force of the Patent Cooperation Treaty with respect to the United States, amends U.S. patent law by adding to the system of obtaining a patent in the United States new international procedures as provided in the Treaty and annexed Regulations, while leaving unchanged the substantive requirements for obtaining a patent. The new procedures are optional, not intended to replace domestic filing procedures nor to diminish the rights of priority and national treatment which applicants are accorded under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (TS 579 as revised by TIAS 6923, 7727; 21 UST 1583, 24 UST 2140).

The Act enables U.S. nationals or residents to file international applications with the Patent Office, acting as a Receiving Office. It authorizes acceptance by the Patent Office of international applications designating the United States, which were filed by foreign applicants in their respective Receiving Offices and which would constitute regularly filed U.S. applications, subject to certain conditions and formal requirements. The Patent Office is also authorized to be a Receiving Office for international applications filed by applicants of other countries, conditioned on the conclusion of an agreement between the United States and such other countries.

The Act provides authority for the Patent Office to become an International Searching Authority, but does not require it to do so. It also requires that international applications comply with certain national requirements, generally at the end of the twentieth

« ÎnapoiContinuați »