* Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State.

1 Dept. of State Files L/T; Dept. of State File No. P87 0059-0773.

1 Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, done Apr. 18, 1961, 23 UST 3227, TIAS No. 7502, 500 UNTS 95, and Article 5 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, done Apr. 24, 1963, 21 UST 77, TIAS No. 6820, 596 UNTS 261, describe the functions of diplomatic missions and of consular posts.

Article 41(3) of the Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides: “The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State.” Article 55 of the Convention on Consular Relations imposes a corresponding obligation upon consular establishments.

2 Dept. of State File No. P87 0055-1044.

1 No. 85-0100-KN (CD. Cal. filed Jan. 7, 1985, as amended Apr. 9, 1985).

2 The statement of interest filed by the United States in Gregorian, supporting motions by V/O Medexport and V /O Licensintorg to vacate the default judgment and to stay execution proceedings pending disposition of the case on the merits, may be found, also, at Dept. of State File No. P87 0059-1198. The supplemental statement of interest filed by the United States, urging dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims for libel, may be found, also, at id., No. P87 0059-1273. On Apr. 5, 1987, District Judge David V. Kenyon denied the motion of defendants to set aside the default judgment as to the contract claims and granted their motion to set aside the default judgment as to libel, dismissing the libel claim. The court’s order may be found, also, at id., No. P87 0059-1290.

3 623 F.Supp. 246 (D.D.C. 1985).

4 The statement of interest filed by the United States on Dec. 8, 1986 in Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Civ. No. 84–0353 (D.D.C. filed Apr. 28, 1986)—the Wallenberg case—Expressed the view that the exercise by the court of its contempt powers in the case would be inappropriate because (1) it would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602–1611 (1982)) and would be ineffective, and (2) a serious question existed concerning the validity of the underlying judgment. The statement of interest may be found, also, at Dept. of State File No. P87 0062-1389. A supplemental statement of interest, filed on Feb. 5, 1987 following oral argument on Dec. 22, 1986, supported the position that jurisdiction for purposes of execution and attachment is not coextensive with jurisdiction to entertain an action. The supplemental statement of interest may be found, also, at Dept. of State File No. P87 0062-1375.

See also Jackson v. People’s Republic of China, 596 F.Supp. 386 (N.D. Ala. 1984), aff’d, 794 F.2d 1490(11th Cir.), reh’g denied, 801 F.2d 404 (11th Cir. 1986), cert, denied, 107S.Ct. 1371 (1987); and Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, No. CV 82-1772-RMT (CD. Cat. Mar. 7, 1985).

5 Wall St. J., Feb. 12, 1987, at 25, cols. 1–2.

1 Statement on the Implications of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident, May 5, 1986, 22 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 584 (May 12, 1986); Dept. St. Bull., No. 2112, July 1986, at 4.

2 Guidelines for Mutual Emergency Assistance Arrangements in Connection with a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency, IAEA Doc. INFCIRC/310 (1984); Guidelines on Reportable Events, Integrated Planning and Information Exchange in a Transboundary Release of Radioactive Material, IAEA Doc. INFCIRC/321 (1985).

3 S. Treaty Doc. 4, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., at VI–XI (1987).

4 Id. at 6.

5 Id. at 16.