Illustration

3. Same facts as in Illustration 2, except that the Secretary determines that there is a violation of the treaty and, within a reasonable time, protests A's action. A denies that the treaty has been violated but expresses willingness to enter into discussions with the United States with a view to reaching an understanding concerning methods of calculating the value of the type of products involved. The Secretary accepts the suggestion and, while reserving the rights of the United States in the controversy, elects not to take the remedial action for violation of the agreement that he may take under international law. This decision is within his authority acting on behalf of the President as indicated in Subsection (1) (3).

e. Modification, suspension, or termination by new agreement. To agree to modify, suspend, or terminate an agreement is in effect to make a new agreement. Hence all the rules concerning authority to make international agreements in §§ 117-121 apply to their modification, suspension, or termination by agreement of the parties. Reporters' Note

Effect of executive waiver of violation. In connection with a challenge to the validity of an extradition from the United States to Italy, on the ground that the Italian Government refused to extradite to the United States persons who appeared to be covered by the same agreement, the Supreme Court said:

The executive department having thus elected to waive any right to free itself from the obligation to deliver up its own citizens, it is the plain duty of this court to recognize the oblition to surrender the appellant as one imposed by the treaty as the supreme law of the land and as affording authority for the warrant of extradition. Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 476 (1913).

As to the power of the President to decide whether a right or claim of the United States should be enforced at all, see La Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 423 (1899).

The United States today gave formal notice of denunciation of the Warsaw Convention on the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air.

The Warsaw Convention was signed in 1929 and entered into force for the United States in 1934. The principal effect of the Convention is to limit the liability of air carriers for personal injury or death of passengers in international air transportation to approximately $8,300 per passenger in most cases. The Convention was amended by a Protocol signed at the Hague in 1955 which raised the limits of liability to approximately $16,600 per passenger, but the United States has never ratified this Protocol.

Today's action was taken under Article 39 of the Convention, which provides that any member country may denounce the Convention upon six months' notice. The notification carries out a decision, made known previously, that the United States would give notice of denunciation of the Warsaw Convention on November 15, unless by that time satisfactory provisional arrangements for the protection of international air passengers had been worked out among the principal international air carriers. A plan for a provisional arrangement whereby the international carriers serving the United States would waive their limits of liability up to $50,000 per passenger was recently proposed by the International Air Transport Association. However, the IATA proposal would have applied only to transportation to and from the United States covered by the Hague Protocol. Since the United States has not ratified the Hague Protocol, the IATA proposal would thus have been inapplicable to the great majority of United States travelers. In addition, it was felt that a ceiling of only $50,000 on recovery by victims of air disasters would not justify continued adherence by the United States to the Warsaw Convention.

The United States would be prepared to withdraw the notice of denunciation deposited today if prior to its effective date of May 15, 1966 there is a reasonable prospect of an international agreement on limits of liability in international air transportation in the area of $100.000 per passenger or on uniform rules but without any limit of liability, and if, pending the effectiveness of such international agreement, there is a provisional arrangement among the principal international air lines waiving the limits of liability up to $75,000 per passenger.

As stated in the note delivered today by the American Embassy in Warsaw to the Polish Government, the United States wishes to make clear that the action to denounce the Warsaw Convention is taken solely because of the Convention's low limits of liability for injury or death to passengers, and in no way represents a departure from the long-standing commitment of the United States to the tradition of international cooperation in matters relating to civil aviation.

In this connection, the United States notes that the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization has called an international conference in Montreal beginning on February 1, 1966 to consider revision of the limits of liability for passengers under the Warsaw Convention. The United States welcomes the recognition by ICAO of the need to reconsider the question of compensation to victims of international air disasters. The United States will participate fully in the Montreal Conference, and hopes that it will be possible to arrive at an international consensus on this important question.

The full text of the notice of denunciation is as follows: "Excellency:

I have the honor, under instructions from my Government, to give formal notification to the Government of the Polish People's Republic of the denunciation by the Government of the United States of America, for itself, its territories, and all other areas under its sovereignty or authority, of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Transporation by Air and the Additional Protocol relating thereto signed at Warsaw on October 12, 1929. This notification is given in accordance with the provisions of Article 39 of the Convention.

"The United States of America wishes to state that it gives this notification solely because of the low limits of liability for death or personal injury provided in the Warsaw Convention, even as those limits would be increased by the Protocol to amend the Convention done at The Hague on September 28, 1955.

"My Government would appreciate it if the Government of the Polish People's Republic would inform the Government of each of the High Contracting Parties to the Convention of this notification and the reason therefor. My Government would also appreciate it if the Government of the Polish People's Republic would inform the Governments of the High Contracting Parties that the United States of America wishes to make clear its continued desire to maintain its tradition of international cooperation in matters relating to civil aviation. To this end, the United States of America stands ready to participate in the negotiation of the revision of the Warsaw Convention which would provide substantially higher limits, or of a convention covering the other matters contained in the Warsaw Convention and Hague Protocol but without limits of liability for personal injury or death."

[January 1, 1977-No. 1]

STATEMENT BY THE ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE IN CONNECTION WITH THE U.S. WITHDRAWAL FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES (ICNAF)

In April of last year, President Ford signed into law the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, extending United States fishery jurisdiction to 200 miles as of March 1, 1977. Since that time, the United States has been moving steadily toward domestic management of our fishery resources.

As a consequence of our extended domestic jurisdiction, and in keeping with the intent of the Act, the President has decided that the United States would withdraw from the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) effective December 31, 1976.

The United States has been an active member of ICNAF since its inception 26 years ago. That Convention has made significant contributions to fishery conservation in the Northwest Atlantic area. We have benefited from decisions taken by Convention members. The scientific research and management of fisheries of the area which have been carried out under ICNAF are outstanding examples of the benefits which can be achieved through international cooperation. The President has, therefore, concluded that as we move toward implementation of our legislation the United States should take into account, in developing our 1977 management plans, the management proposals developed at the last meeting of ICNAF.

The expertise developed within ICNAF will provide a sound basis for the establishment of a successor organization which will provide fisheries management within our 200 mile zone will now be a domestic responsibility of the United States. The United States will actively support efforts to continue international consultation and cooperation in dealing with fisheries problems in the Northwest Atlantic and will participate in the conference of plenipotentiaries in late 1977 to consider the drafting of a new convention.

The U.S. withdrawal from ICNAF included withdrawal from the following agreements:

7. International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, February 8, 1949. In force, but not for the United States (citation: 1 UST 477; TIAS 2089).

(a) Protocol to the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, June 25, 1956 (10 UST 59; TIAS 4170).

32-770-78- -3

(b) Declaration of Understanding Regarding the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, April 24, 1961 (14 UST 924; TIAS 5380).

(c) Protocol to the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Relating to Harp and Hood Seals, July 15, 1963 (17 UST 635; TIAS 6011).

(d) Protocol to the International Convention by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Relating to Harp and Hood Seals, July 15, 1963, (17 UST 635; TIAS 6011). Entry into Force of Proposals Adopted by the Commission, November 29, 1965 (21 UST 567; TIAS 6840).

(e) Protocol to the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Relating to Measures of Control, November 29, 1965 (21 UST 576; TIAS 6841).

(f) Protocol to the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Relating to Panel Membership and to Regulatory Measures, October 1, 1969 (23 UST 1504; TIAS 7432).

(g) Protocol to the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Relating to Amendments to the Convention, October 6, 1970 (24 UST; 2716; TIAS 7941).

Implementing legislation for the Convention was repealed by Congress in 1977 (Public Law 95-6).