* [Reproduced from the text of the Act in Diario Ofidal de la Federadon, October 23, 1996 at 9-10, translated by Jorge A. Vargas, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law and International Legal Materials Corresponding Editor for Mexico. Entered into force November 24, 1996. The Introductory Note was provided to International Legal Materials by Professor Vargas, and the excerpts of the legislative history that follow the Act were also selected and translated by Professor Vargas.

[The U.S. Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 (the Helms-Burton Act) appears at 35 I.L.M. 357 (1996); the U.S. Statement by the President suspending Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, January 3, 1997, appears at 36 I.L.M. 216 (1997); the European Union Council of Ministers Common Position on Cuba, December 2, 1996, appears at 36 I.L.M. 213 (1997); the Canadian Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act Incorporating the Amendments Countering the U.S. Helms-Burton Act, with an Introductory Note by Douglas Forsythe, appears at 36 I.L.M. III (1997); and the EU Council Regulation No. 2271/96, Protecting Against the Effects of the Extra-Territorial Application of Legislation Adopted by a Third Country, appears at 36 I.L.M. 125 (1997).]

1 ley de proteccion al comercio y la inversion de normas extranjeras que contra vengan el derecho internacional. Diario Oficial de la Federación (México's Official Daily of the Federation, hereinafter D.O.) of October 23, 1996 at 9-10.

2 U.S. PUBLIC LAW 104-114 of March 12, 1996. For the text of this Act, see 35 I.L.M. 357 (1996).

3 BILL C-54: an act to amend the foreign extraterritorial measures act (FEMA). The House of Commons of Canada, 2nd Session, 35th Parliament, 45 Elizabeth II, 1996. The House of Commons passed it on first reading on October 9, 1996, the Senate approved it on November 7, 1996, the Act received Royal Assent on December 30, 1996, and it came into force on January 1, 1997. See 36 I.L.M. III (1997).

4 Canada to Introduce Response to Sanctions,The oil daily, Sept. 16, 1996, at 5; Ottawa Blocks Anti-Cuba Law, The observer, Sept. 15, 1996, at 3; Canada Introduces Bill to Counter U.S. Helms-Burton Act, News agency, Sept. 16, 1996 (Item 0916018).

5 Council regulation (EC) NO 2271/96 Protecting Against the Effects of the Extra-Territorial Application of Legislation Adopted by a Third Country, and Actions Based Thereon or Resulting There from, 1996 O.J. (L 309) 1. See 36 I.L.M. 125 (1997).

6 Article 1, Id. The Annex includes the Helms-Burton Act. This Regulation entered into force on November 29, 1996, the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

7 Palabras del Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores de México durante la Ceremonia Inaugural de la XIII Reunión de la Comisión Binacional México-Estados Unidos. México, D.F., Mayo 6 de 1996. See also Barber, Ben. Clinton Cabinet Swoops South for Binational Commission, The washington POST, May 7, 1996, at A-9.Google Scholar

8 Victo Batta, Invariable, la Posición de Rechazo hacia la Helms: SRE. Reitera los Lazos de Amistad con Cuba, El financiero, México, August 27, 1996, at 43.

9 Lourdes Gonzalez P6rez and Dolia Estevez, Derogar la Helms-Burton, Exige Mixico a Washington. Respeto a Cuba para Decidir sobre su Politico Interna, reitera Gurria, El Financiero, Seccidn Internacional, México, August 29, 1996, at 46

10 Erróneo Apelar al TLC, advierte Eisenstadt, El financiero, Section Internacional, México, August 29, 1996, at 46.

11 Id

12 Id.

13 Out of a total of 212 joint ventures operating in Cuba with a total commercial value close to 2 billion U.S. dollars, the long-term venture investment of “Grupo Domos” is reported to be “worth over 1.5 billion U.S. dollars…to modernize the island's telephone network.” See Jose de Cordoba and Carla Ann Robbins, México Sees Clinton concern over Cuba Trade Bill, Reuters (Money Report), September 22, 1995.

14 Text of generic letter provided to the author by the U.S. Department of State, Office of Cuban Affairs, Washington, D.C.

15 Batta, Invariable, la Posición de Rechazo Hacia la Helms: SRE, supra note 8 at 43.

16 Isidro Barbosa, Domos prepara Antídoto contra la Helms-Burton. Presentará Denuncias ante La Haya y la OMC (Organizatión Mundial de Comercio), El Financiero, Sección de Negocios, México, August 30, 1996, at 10.

17 Carlos Benavides and Leticia Rodríguez, Condena Zedillo la Ley Helms-Burton. Listo el “Borrador” de la Ley Antídoto, El Financiero, Sección International, México, September 2, 1996, at 58.

18 Declaracion de cochabamba, Section titled: Extraterritorial Application of National Laws. Tenth Meeting of the “Grupo de Río.” Cochabamba, Bolivia, September 3-4, 1996. Representatives of the following countries signed the Declaration: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, México, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela.

19 The text of the Opinion of the Inter-American Juridical Committee in response to the OAS Resolution on Free Trade and Investment in the Hemisphere, approved unanimously on August 23, 1996, appears at 35 I.L.M. 1322, 1329-1334 (1996).

20 Id. at 1334. See also Edge la OEA Derogar la Ley Helms-Burton. Esta Ley “ha dividido la comunidad intemacional:” México. “So pondrá en práctica,” dice desafiante la Embajadora de EU, El Financiero, September 12, 1996, at 47, and Victor Batta, La Opinión de la OEA, otro Reves Juridico a la Helms-Burton. Aisla a Washington: Flores Olea, El Financiero, August 26, 1996, at 48.

21 Declaracion de VIŇA Del mar. VI Cumbre Iberoamericana de Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno. This conference, attended by 21 Iberoamerican countries, was held in Santiago and Viňa del Mar, Chile, on November 10 and 11, 1996.

22 First Part: Governability for an Efficient and Participatory Democracy, Introduction. Id. at 1.

23 The Declaration's Third Part, titled Questions of Special Interest includes topics such as Democracy and Human Rights, Sustainable Development, Struggle against Poverty and Exclusion, Struggle against Illicit Traffic of Drugs and related Crimes, Terrorism, Security, etc., including Legal Questions. Id. at 13.

24 Id at 13 (emphasis by the author).

25 Id at 14. The 21 countries represented at the VI Iberoamerican Summit were: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, México, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Uruguay and Venezuela

26 Cuba's Foreign Investment Act of 1995 [September 5, 1995], with an Introductory Note by Jorge A. Vargas, appears at 35 I.L.M. 331 (1996).

27 U.S. Bars Canadians, Britons in Cuba Dispute. Nine Families Forbidden to Enter; Economic Retaliation Threatened, The San Diego Union-Tribune, July 11, 1996, at A-10; and Europeans Challenge U.S. on Cuba Trade, The San Diego Union-Tribune, October 2, 1996, at A-ll.

28 John Campbell, Ambassador from Ireland, said on behalf of the European Union: “Europeans cannot accept that the United States may unilaterally determine or restrict the European Union's economic and commercial relations with any other State.” Last year, a similar resolution passed 117-3, with 38 abstentions. More U.N. Members Oppose Cuba Embargo, The San Diego-Union , November 13, 1996, at A-18.

29 Published in México's D.O. on November 23, 1996, its “Artículo Trasitorio Unico” provided that the Act was to enter into force the following day after its official publication.

30 See Brice M. Clagett, Agora: The Cuba Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act. Title III of the Helms-Burton Act is Consistent with International Law, 90 AJIL 434 (July 1996). Effective implementation of Title III was postponed by President Clinton until early 1997.

31 See Sections 101 (13); 212 (a); 221 (a); 236 (a); 237 (a) and 241 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 (hereinafter INA).

32 See INA Sections 221 and 222.

33 See INA Section 235 (b).

34 Section 221 (h) of the INA provides: “Nothing in this chapter [Chap. II: Issuance of Entry Documents] shall be construed to entitle any alien, to whom a visa or other documentation has been issued, to enter the United States, if, upon arrival at a port of entry in the United States, he is found to be inadmissible under this chapter, or any other provision of the law. The substance of this subsection shall appear upon every visa application.” (Emphasis by the author.)

35 Article 1603, para. 1, NAFTA. 32 I.L.M. 664 (1993) (emphasis by the author).

36 Art. 1603, para. 2, NAFTA. 32 I.L.M. 664 (1993).

37 Art. 1603, para. 3, NAFTA. 32 I.L.M. 665 (1993).

38 See supra note 14, and the corresponding text.

39 Article 4 of this Council Regulation is aimed at “blocking the recognition or enforceability within the Community of judgements by courts or tribunals outside the Community, which give effect to the contested U.S.legislation.” See Council Regulation (EC) No. 2271/96, supra note 5 at 2.

40 The replaced Sections 8 to 10 of Fema “allow for the blocking of recognition of foreign judgements given in proceedings under foreign trade laws set out in the schedule to the Act.” See Summary, paragraph (c), Bill C-54, supra note 3 at la.

41 See Section 9, Recovery of Damages, Id. at 6-7.

42 The Council Regulation contains a similar provision, taken from the “Canadian ‘blocking statute’ in that it allows for the recovery of the full amount, and not only for the part of the amount that was obtained by doubling or tripling the original compensation/payment made under a judgement of a U.S. court or tribunal.” Council Regulation (EC) No. 2271/96, supra note 5 at 2.

43 Section 9 (1), (a) and (b), Bill C-54, supra note 3 at 6.

44 This statement appears also in the Council Regulation.

45 Similar provisions are included in the Canadian Act (Section 7-1), and in Article 9 of the EU Council Regulation which reads: “Each Member State shall determine the sanctions to be imposed in the event of breach of any relevant provisions of this Regulation. Such sanctions must be effective, proportional and dissuasive.“

46 Articles 28 and 34 of México's Ley Organica de la Administracion Publica Federal (Act of the Federal Public Administration, Diario Oficial of December 29, 1976, as amended by D.O. of December 28, 1994) enumerate the specific functions attributed to the SRE and the Secofi, respectively. The internal regulations (Reglamento Interior) of each of these agencies should also be consulted regarding the legal and administrative scope of their respective jurisdictions. See Legislacion De La Administracion Publica Federal, Ediciones Delma, México, D.F., 1995 at 10-11 and 25-27, respectively.

1 Article 554 of México's Federal Code of Civil Procedure governs the question of “Homologacion ”. Also known as “Exequatur”, “ Homologacion” is the formal compliance in a competent Mexican court of certain specific requirements established by the applicable Mexican domestic legislation to provide a foreign judgment, arbitral award or judicial resolution “with executive force” (i.e. para dotarlo de fuerza ejecutiva) in order to be enforced coactively. See Vargas, Jorge A., Enforcement of Judgments in México: The 1988 Rules of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, 14 NW.J.INT'L L.&Bus 376, 394–395 n.2 (1994)Google Scholar. (Translator's note.)

2 As of this writing, the general minimum salary in México City is 28.60 Mexican pesos. 8 Mexican pesos equals 1 U.S.dollar, approximately. (Translator's note.)

3 Recently enacted (D.O. of August 4, 1994) and composed of 96 articles, this federal statute governs any acts, procedures and resolutions of the Federal Public Administration except those that are agrarian, electoral, federal criminal, financial, fiscal, or deal with labor and public servants’ responsibilities. (Translator's note.)

1 Initiative de Ley que Protégé el Comercio y la Inversión.Letter addressed by President Zedillo to the Chamber of Senators, Congress of the Union. México City, September 5, 1996, 7 pp.

2 Art. 71, paras. I and II, Constitucion Politica De Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Ediciones Delma, 24th ed., México, D.F., 1995 at 55.

3 Senado De La Republic A. Comisiones Unidas de Relaciones Exteriores; Comercio; Fomento Industrial y Estudios Legislativos, Cuarta Section. Chamber of Senators, México City, September 18, 1996. (hereinafter Sen Ado).

4 As a result of a constitutional amendment made in 1988 by President Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado, paragraph X of Article 89, relative to the powers and duties of the Executive, was changed to read: “In conducting [foreign affairs], the office holder of the Executive Power shall observe the following normative principles: self determination of nations; non intervention; peaceful settlement of disputes; the proscription of the threat or the use of force in international relations; the legal equality of States; international cooperation for development; and the struggle for peace and international security.” Art. 89, para. X, in fine, Constitution Politica, supra note 2 at 74

5 From a position of “absolute territorialism” enshrined in the Civil Codes of 1870, 1884 and 1928, Art. 12 of the Civil Code for the Federal District was amended in 1988 to introduce an attenuated form of territorialism (see Diario Oficial of January 8, 1988). The text of this article today reads: “Mexican laws apply to all persons located in the Republic, as well as to the acts and factual situations which have taken place within its territory or jurisdiction, and to those [acts or factual situations] which are subject to said laws, save when those laws provide for the application of a foreign law and save, also, what is provided by the treaties and conventions to which México is a party.” Art. 12, Codigo Civil Para El Distrito Federal En Materia Comun, Y Para Toda La Republica En Materia Federal, Ediciones Delma, México, D.F., 1994 at 2-3.

6 Article 13 of the same Code, as amended in 1988, establishes some rules on conflict of laws for the first time in México's legislative history, including the application of foreign law. Most of these rules were taken from the Inter-American Convention on General Rules of Private International Law, adopted in Montevideo, Uruguay on May 8, 1979 and signed by México Ad referendum on August 3, 1982, 18 I.L.M. 1236 (1979) (see Diario Oficial of January 13, 1983 and Diarios Oficiales of September 21 and October 10, 1984).

7 Article 15 of the same Code details the cases where foreign law cannot be applied by Mexican courts, incorporating two well-recognized principles of conflict of laws: ordre public and fraud au loi. For a legal and historical analysis of these three articles, see Jorge A. Vargas, Conflict of Laws in México: The New Rules Introduced by the 1988 Amendments, 28 INT'L LAW. 659-694 n.3 (Fall 1994) (in its Appendix, the article includes the old and the new texts of Articles 12-15).

8 See Vargas, Jorge A., Enforcement of Judgments in México: The 1988 Rules of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, 14 NW. J. INT'L L. & Bus. 376, 376–412 n.2 (1994).Google Scholar

9 Recently enacted (D.O. of August 4, 1994) and composed of 96 articles, this federal statute governs any acts, procedures and resolutions of the Federal Public Administration except those that are agrarian, electoral, federal criminal, financial, fiscal, or deal with labor and public servants’ responsibilities.

10 The text of this legislative bill is omitted. With minor changes, the bill was passed by México's Federal Congress.

11 Senado, supra note 3 at 2-3.

12 ld. at 4.

13 Regarding the internal legislative procedure, see Articles 75, 80 and 85 of the Ley Orgánica del Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Federal Act of the General Congress of the United Mexican States) and Articles 87, 90 and 93 of the Reglamento para el Gobierno Interior del Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Federal Regulations for the Internal Government of the General Congress of the United Mexican States).

14 Senado, supra note 3 at 11.

15 Senado. Sesión Pública Ordinaria del 19 de Septiembre de 1996; 6a. Parte. CP. at 1

16 Dictamen. Comisiones Unidas de Relaciones Exteriores y de Comerdo. Cámara de Diputados, Doc. 155/LVI/96 (I P.O. Aflo III) DICT. Sala de Comisiones de la Cámara de Diputados, Septiembre 25 de 1996, 16 pp.

17 Article 11 of México's Constitution grants Mexican nationals, as a constitutional right (Garantía individual), the “Freedom of transit” (Libertad de tránsito). This article provides, inter alia: “Everyone has the right to enter and leave the Republic, to travel through its territory and to change residence without necessity of a letter of security, passport, safe-conduct or other similar requirement…the exercise of this right shall be subordinated to the powers of the judiciary…and to those of the administrative authorities with respect to the limitations imposed by the laws on emigration, immigration and public health of the Republic…” Constitucion, supra note 2 at 7.

18 Dictamen, supra note 16 at 2.

19 Id. at 6.

20 Id. at 7

21 Id.