Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T17:45:59.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Marian L. Nash
Marian L. Nash*
Affiliation:
Department of State
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 74 , Issue 4 , October 1980 , pp. 917 - 934
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Page no 917 note 1 Footnotes to the quoted portion of the Legal Adviser's letter are as follows:

a The Articles of Agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 60 Stat. 1440, TIAS No. 1502, as amended, 16 U.S.T. 1942, TIAS No. 5929. Authorization for U.S. participation in the Bank is set forth in the Bretton Woods Agreements Act of 1945, Pub. L. 79-171, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 286 et seq.

b Lutcher S.A. Celulose e Papel v. Inter-American Development Bank, 382 F.2d 454 (D.C. Cir. 1967), is not to the contrary. While affirming the dismissal of the complaint on other grounds, the court held that a provision in the IADB Charter similar to Article VI 1(3) permitted a loan recipient to challenge the Bank's lending practices vis-a-vis its competitors as a breach of its written loan agreement with the Bank–in effect placing the Bank's commercial debtors in the same position as its creditors. The opinion cannot reasonably be read to endorse jurisdiction over employment discrimination complaints brought by internal staff members.

c See, for example, Article V(5) (d) of the Bank's Articles of Agreement

d E.g.,Heltzel v. Air Traffic Services Agency (Nov. 30, 1979) (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany); Intergovernmental Committee on European Migration (ICEM) v. Di Banella Shirone (April 18, 1975) (Supreme Court of Italy, No. 1266); and Chemidlin v. International Bureau of Weights and Measures, 12 Ann. Dig. 281 (Case No. 94) (Tribunal Civil of Versailles, France, 1945). No U.S. courts have held to the contrary, and some have refused to take jurisdiction over such disputes. See Herbert Harvey Inc. v. NLRB, 424 F.2d 770, 773 (D.G. Cir. 1969); Weidnerv. Int'l. Telecommunications Satellite Org., 392 A.2d 508 (D.C. 1978).

e See M. Akehurst, The Law Governing Employment in International Organizations (1967); W. Friedmann and A. A. Fatouros, The United Nations Administrative Tribunal, 11 Int'l Org. 13 (1957); C. W. Jenks, The Proper Law of International Organizations (1962); F. Seyersted, Jurisdiction Over Organs and Officials of States, the Holy See and Intergovernmental Organizations, 14 Int'l and Comp. L.Q. 493 (1965); F. Seyersted, Settlement of Internal Disputes of Intergovernmental Organizations by Internal and External Courts, 24 Zeitschrift fur Auslandisches Recht and Volkerrecht (in English) (1964).

f Jenks, supra at 63. See also Seyersted, Settlement of Disputes, supra at 79–81.

Page no 921 note 2 Dept. of State File No. P80 0108-2131.

On July 22, 1980, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted to ratify the dismissal which had been issued by the director of its Washington area office on Feb. 12, 1980, because of lack of jurisdiction. Dept. of State File No. P80 0109-1562.

Page no 921 note 1 Dept. of State File No. P80 0084-1320.

Page no 921 note 1 Dept. of State File No. P80 0097-0939.

Similar takeovers began to take place in Libyan Embassies in a number of European capitals. They paralleled structural changes in the Libyan Foreign Secretariat that the Libyan Government set in train.

Page no 922 note 2 Id., No. P80 0041-1652.

Page no 923 note 3 See White House Press Release, July 22, 1980, in id., No. P80 0108-1155, and see transcript of White House briefing for reporters by Joseph L. Powell, Press Secretary to the President, July 24, 1980, in id., No. P80 0108-1157.

Page no 923 note 4 See transcript of White House briefing for reporters, supra note 3, at 2.

Page no 923 note 5 Dept. of State File Nos. P80 0041-1649/0063-0203, and 0063-0206.

Page no 924 note 6 Id., No. P80 0097-0940.

Page no 925 note 7 Id., No. P80 0059-1045.

Page no 925 note 8 Id., No. P80 0063-1211.

Page no 926 note 9 Id., No. P80 0063-0235.

Page no 926 note 10 Id., No. P80 0063-0213.

Page no 926 note 11 Id., No. P80 0063-0234.

Page no 927 note 12 Id., No. P80 0063-0227.

Page no 927 note 13 For the Department's note of May 8, embodying the notification given personally to Dr. el-Houderi, see id., No. P80 0063-0228.

Page no 928 note 14 Id., No. P80 0069-0911.

Page no 928 note 15 See 80 DEPT. STATE BULL., NO. 2043, Oct. 1980, at 60.

Page no 929 note 1 Dept. of State File No. P80 0108-2005. See further 74 AJIL 665 (1980), and 73 AJIL 124, 678(1979).

Page no 931 note 1 Dept. of State File No. P80 0113-0230.

In a note to Secretary of State Edmund S. Muskie, dated May 21, 1980, the Charge d'Affaires of Switzerland, Franz E. Muheim, confirmed that the Iranian Government's agreement to Swiss representation of U.S. interests in Iran had been given to the Embassy of Switzerland in Tehran by the Iranian Foreign Ministry in a note dated Apr. 24, 1980.Id., No. P80 0113-0228. The information had been communicated to the Department of State earlier.

Page no 931 note 2 Id., Nos. P80 0113-0236 and 0113-0235. The United States did not consent to transfer of custody of the premises of the Iranian diplomatic mission and consular posts in the United States.

Page no 931 note 1 See for the Treaty on Maritime Boundaries between the United States and the United Mexican States, signed May 4, 1978, S. EXEC. DOC. F, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979); for the Maritime Boundary Agreement between the United States and the Republic of Cuba, signed Dec. 16, 1977, S. EXEC. DOC. H, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979); and for the Maritime Boundary Treaty between the United States and Venezuela, signed March 28, 1978, S. EXEC. DOC. G, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979).

Page no 931 note 2 For Mr. Feldman's explanation of "the practical necessity and legal justification for 'provisional application' of the boundary treaty with Cuba," see Dept. of State File No. P800110-1460.

Page no 933 note 3 Ibid.

On August 5, 1980, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations reported the 3 maritime boundary agreements favorably without reservation and recommended Senate advice and consent to their ratification. The committee registered "concern," however, at the administration's responses to Senator Javits's questions about provisional application of treaties, even though the committee did not "dispute the practical necessity of reaching limited practical accommodations between treaty signatories prior to Senate action." S. Exec. Rep. NO. 96-49, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1980).

Page no 934 note 1 Dept. of State File No. P80 0110-1460. This was the last of the four questions submitted by Senator Javits; see chapter 5, §1 supra.