« ÎnapoiContinuați »
of violence in the Middle East, and would call on all parties to refrain from any action that might endanger peace negotiations. In his December 8 statement, Ambassador Moynihan stressed that the United States was speaking “not just as a government but as a government seeking to bring peace in the role of mediator" in the Middle East. He proposed that the pending draft resolution which would condemn Israel for air attacks against Lebanon be amended to present a more balanced resolution. The U.S. proposals were not accepted, and the draft resolution (U.N. Doc. S/11898) was brought to a vote on December 8. The United States vetoed the resolution, which consequently failed of adoption. The vote was 13 to 1, with 1 abstention (Costa Rica). In a statement following the vote, Ambassador Moynihan said:
the United States strongly deplores the Israeli actions which were brought to our attention by the Governments of Lebanon and Egypt. . . . But we also believe that the problem of the loss of innocent life from incursions from Lebanon and other neighboring states of Israel should also be condemned. This is part of the cycle of violence with which we are dealing and which the United States, as a mediating power, hopes to bring to an end.
We worked strenuously for a balanced resolution, and we have reluctantly had to veto the resolution as it now stands, which as we have made clear from the beginning, we did not consider to be balanced.
Press Release USUN-183(75), Dec. 8, 1975. Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIV, No. 1906, Jan. 5, 1976, pp. 25–26. The text of the draft resolution (U.N. Doc. S 11898) follows:
The Security Council,
Having considered the question inscribed in its agenda at the 1859th meeting,
Having noted the contents of the letter of the Permanent Representative of Lebanon (S/11892) and of the letter of the Permanent Representative of Egypt (S/11893),
Having heard the statements of the Permanent Representatives of Lebanon,
Recalling its previous relevant resolutions,
Grieved at the tragic loss of human life caused by indiscriminate and massive Israeli air attacks,
Gravely concerned about the deteriorating situation resulting from Israel's violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and of Security Council resolutions,
Convinced that Israeli massive air attacks against Lebanon were premeditative in nature,
1. Strongly condemns the Government of Israel for its premeditated air attacks against Lebanon in violation of its obligations under the United Nations Charter and of Security Council resolutions;
2. Calls upon Israel to desist forthwith from all military attacks against Lebanon;
3. Issues once again a solemn warning to Israel that if such attacks were repeated, the Council would have to consider taking appropriate steps and measures to give effect to its decisions.
On March 12, 1975, the Security Council of the United Nations adopted Resolution 367 (1975), urging resumption of negotiations between the two communities in Cyprus in cooperation with the Secretary-General. The resolution requested the Secretary-General “to undertake a new mission of good offices and to that end to convene the parties under new agreed procedures and place himself personally at their disposal, so that the resumption, the intensification and the progress of comprehensive negotiations, carried out in a reciprocal spirit of understanding and of moderation under his personal auspices and with his direction as appropriate, might thereby be facilitated.”
The resolution also called on all states to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, and nonalignment of the Republic of Cyprus and to refrain from any attempt at partition of the island or its unification with any other country. It expressed regret at the unilateral decision of February 13, 1975, declaring that a part of Cyprus would become “a Federated Turkish State" as tending to compromise the continuation of negotiations between the two communities on an equal footing.
In voting for the resolution, Ambassador John Scali, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, stated in part:
My delegation joined in approving Resolution 367 because from the outset we firmly believed that the primary goal of the Security Council should be to encourage the resumption of talks between the two communities in Cyprus....
U.N. Security Council Doc. S/RES/367 (1975), Mar. 12, 1975. U.N. Security Council Doc. S/PV.1820, Mar. 12, 1975, p. 46; Press Release USUN-21(75), Mar. 12, 1975. See ante, Ch. 13, § 1, pp. 755–757, concerning negotiations on Cyprus.
The Agreement between the United States and Poland Regarding Fisheries in the Western Region of the Middle Atlantic Ocean (TIAS 8099; 26 UST 1117; entered into force July 1, 1975) provides in Article 10 for the establishment of a U.S.-Polish Fisheries Board, as set out in Annex I of the Agreement. The Board is to consist of four members, two appointed by each Government, and its decisions are to be undertaken unanimously by members present and voting, so long as at least one member appointed by each Government is present. The Board is to consider claims advanced by a national of either state against a national of the other state regarding financial loss resulting from damage to or loss of fishing vessel or gear. Claims must be brought within six months of the relevant incident, but the Board may make an exception for an incident occurring during the six weeks prior to the entry into force of the Agreement. A set of conciliation procedures is provided.
The Board is to issue a conciliation report containing its findings as to the facts giving rise to the claim, the extent of damage or loss, the degree of responsibility on each side, and the amount, if any, which should be paid as compensation. The Governments undertake to encourage settlement of claims in accordance with the Board's findings and to report to the Board on the actions taken by their nationals pursuant to those findings. If one of the parties to a conciliation proceeding refuses to settle in accordance with the findings of the Board, the Board is to encourage the parties to submit their dispute to binding arbitration.
Section VI of Annex I provides that at the request of either Government the Board shall consider questions arising out of the application of the provisions of any bilateral fisheries agreement in force between the two Governments or claims by either Government that vessels flying the flag of the other Government have violated any such provision. The two Governments agree to give food faith consideration to the reports of the Board in determining whether remedial action is appropriate and to report to the Board the action taken to implement its findings.
Section VII of the Annex provides that the Board is to apply international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the two Governments, including bilateral and multilateral agreements between them dealing with fisheries and maritime matters generally; international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as a law; the general principles of law recognized by nations; and judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.
The Annex also provides that judicial proceedings and judicial rights of persons, whether or not participating in proceedings before the Board, are to remain unaffected. It prohibits bringing a claim which is under adjudication or arbitration; calls for suspension of conciliation proceedings of a claim in respect of which judicial proceedings are instituted, unless the court before which the proceedings are pending determines otherwise; and orders the Board to terminate immediately any conciliation proceedings regarding a claim in respect of which there is a binding agreement to arbitrate.
A separate exchange of notes, dated May 29, 1975, provides that in case of termination of the U.S.-Polish Agreement of that date, Annex I on Establishment of the U.S. Polish Fisheries Board is to remain in force as a separate agreement, subject to termination on sixty days notice by either Government, but to continue thereafter until the conclusion of any conciliation or fisheries agreement proceedings instituted prior to the effective date of the notice.
See also ante, Ch. 7, § 4, pp. 409 412.
Fisheries agreements between the United States and Poland relating to fisheries off the U.S. Pacific coast, signed May 30, 1975 (TIAS 8100), and December 16, 1975, respectively, provide that the activities of the nationals and vessels of the parties shall come within the purview of the U.S.-Polish Fisheries Board, established by the Agreement of May 29, 1975, Regarding Fisheries in the Western Region of the Middle Atlantic Ocean.
The Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, signed at Saipan February 15, 1975, provides in Article IX for regular consultation on all matters affecting the relationship of the United States and the Northern Mariana Islands. Additionally, it makes clear the intention that cases or controversies arising under the Covenant are justiciable. Section 903 of Article IX of the Covenant provides as follows:
SECTION 903. Nothing herein shall prevent the presentation of cases or controversies arising under this Covenant to courts established by the Constitution or laws of the United States. It is intended that any such cases or controversies will be justiciable in such courts and that the undertakings by the Government of the United States and by the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands provided for in this Covenant will be enforceable in such courts.
The full text of the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America is at Cong. Rec., Vol. 121, No. 43, Mar. 17, 1975, pp. 40834091 (daily ed.), and U.N. Doc. T 1759, Mar. 10, 1975. For a summary of the Covenant, see Ch. 2, $ 6, ante, pp. 97–103.
The International Court of Justice
Monroe Leigh, Legal Adviser of the Department of State, wrote a letter to Congressman Paul Findley on June 2, 1975, replying to a suggestion from Congressman Findley that the United States offer to join Cambodia in submitting to the International Court of Justice the legal issues involved in the seizure of the SS Mayaguez. The Mayaguez, a U.S. merchant ship, had been seized by Cambodian forces on May 12, 1975, on a regular shipping route between Hong Kong and Sattahip, Thailand, and the United States had responded militarily to obtain its release. See ante, Ch. 7, § 5, p. 423; post, Ch. 14, § 1, p. 777; Ch. 14, $ 8, p. 879. Mr. Leigh's letter reads, in principal part, as follows:
Your suggestion is a thoughtful one, which has substantial attractions, as the text of your statement to the House of Representatives shows. However, we are, on balance, disinclined to invite Cambodia to join in placing the Mayaguez issues before the Court for two reasons.
First, we believe that we have vindicated U.S. rights under international law by the action taken; with the release of the ship and crew, there is no continuing dispute which, from our viewpoint, the Court could usefully resolve. It should be noted in this regard that, to our knowledge, Cambodia has advanced no legal claims against the United States in respect of the Mayaguez incident.
Second, in view of the profoundly negative attitude of Communist states to the Court, we see little possibility that Cambodia would agree to submit the case to the Court. This attitude of Communist states is so well known that, if we made the offer, informed observers might tend to dismiss it as one we made confident that it would not be accepted. We are reinforced in this view by the fact that Cambodia has so far manifested no disposition to engage even in diplomatic communication, still less international adjudication.
Dept. of State File No. P75 0092-2085.
On July 9, 1975, the Bahamas declared jurisdiction over the spiny lobster as a living resource of the Continental Shelf. Talks