Antitrust Laws

The U.S. Government in August 1975 notified the Governments of Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, of the intention of the Department of Justice to undertake a civil investigation of ocean carriers in the North Atlantic trade between Europe and the United States. In August 1976 the U.S. Government informed the six governments of its intention to initiate a Grand Jury review in application of U.S. antitrust laws. Subpoenas were subsequently issued to a number of shipping conferences and container lines, calling for the production of documents relating to North Atlantic shipping.

The six Governments in notes of October 12 and 13, 1976, individually expressed their concern at the application of U.S. antitrust laws to ocean shipping, and on October 27, the U.S. Government, in keeping with agreements within the Organization for Cooperation and Economic Development (OECD) on antitrust cooperation, consulted with the six Governments in an effort to describe the scope and objectives of the investigation and review, to the extent permitted by the secrecy requirements of the Civil Investigative Demand statute and the Grand Jury procedure permit. In a note to the several Governments dated December 2, 1976, the United States offered to engage in further consultations in either bilateral or joint formats. The note stated the U.S. position on the matter as follows:

The U.S. position on the application of its laws to international shipping recognizes the fact that the activities of the ocean shipping industry are by their nature international and that the trade of the United States is also the trade of at least one other country. The U.S. Government in no way asserts a right to unilaterally regulate the conduct of ocean carriers providing service to the United States. However, the U.S. Government must insure that conduct of such ocean carriers, which affects U.S. commerce, is not at variance with U.S. legislation.

The U.S. Government does not believe that the application of its antitrust laws, to agreements which the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission has not approved or cannot approve, and which are therefore not exempt from those laws, will hamper the expansion of world trade or the efficient flow of international shipping. Nor should this constitute an interference with the vital interests of the countries whose shipping provides service to the United States. The objective of the U.S. policy, including the antitrust laws, is to insure that shipping services are provided on a sound economic basis. As was emphasized by the United States during the October 27 consultation, the current investigation is in no way aimed at

undermining the conference system or impairing the relationship between conferences and the U.S. regulatory authorities. On the contrary, the investigation would determine whether the integrity of the regulated conference system has been impaired by the implementation of secret agreements.

Dept. of State File No. P76 0183-1143.

Containers

On September 15, 1976, the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of the Customs Convention on Containers, 1972, and the International Convention for Safe Containers, both signed at Geneva on December 5, 1972 (Senate Executive X, 93d Congress, 1st Session). The President signed instruments of ratification of the two conventions on October 8, 1976, but deposit of the U.S. ratifications awaits enactment of implementing legislation.

The Customs Convention on Containers, 1972, is designed to supersede and update the Customs Convention on Containers, 1956 (TIAS 6632; 20 UST 301; entered into force for the United States March 3, 1969). The provisions of the 1956 convention became obsolete or inadequate as a result of the considerable increase in number of containers used in international traffic and the need both for simplifying customs formalities and for facilitating container transport. The new convention provides for: (1) the temporary importation, free of import duties and taxes, and free of import prohibitions and restrictions, of containers, either loaded or empty, their accessories and equipment, and component parts for the repair of temporarily admitted containers; (2) the use of temporarily imported containers in internal transport operations under specified conditions; (3) the acceptance of containers by the customs administration of each party to the convention which meet the specifications in, and are approved and documented or marked in accordance with, the procedures set forth in the technical annexes to the convention; and (4) the approval of containers for transport under customs seal. The convention entered into force on December 6, 1975, for countries which had deposited instruments of ratification or other approval six months prior to that date.

The International Convention for Safe Containers was motivated by concern over the adverse impact that unilateral construction requirements would have on the facilitation of containerization. The convention signals agreement by states parties to it that such safety requirements be developed on a common basis. The convention specifies the structural requirements which transport containers must meet to assure that they are safe. It does not include the stowage

of goods in the containers, the handling of containers at interface points, or the actual transport of containers on vehicles of any mode. Its requirements relate to all containers above a specified size except those designed exclusively for air transport. The convention lays down specific engineering requirements which all affected containers must meet and provides a framework for an administrative system to assure compliance.

Each party to the safety convention must designate an appropriate authority to be responsible for implementation of effective procedures for testing, inspection, approval, and periodic reexamination of containers. Testing, inspection, and approval may be entrusted to nongovernmental organizations. Parties to the convention are required to recognize approvals granted under the terms of the convention, but if there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of a container creates an obvious risk to safety, they may act to ensure that it is restored to safe condition before continuing in service. The convention will enter into force on September 6, 1977, for countries which by September 6, 1976, had deposited instruments of ratification or other approval.

Automotive Traffic

Glenn E. Shealey of the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for European Affairs, Department of State, responded in a letter of July 26, 1976, to an inquiry from the Embassy of Switzerland in Washington concerning difficulties encountered by Swiss citizens entering Massachusetts with respect to the recognition of their Swiss driver's licenses, despite the fact that Switzerland accords privileges to Massachusetts drivers for up to one year.

Mr. Shealey noted that the regulation of highways in the United States is left to individual States and that four StatesMassachusetts, Tennessee, West Virginia, and New Mexico-do not technically recognize Swiss driver's licenses. Inasmuch as Switzerland was not a party to the 1949 Convention on Road Traffic (TIAS 2487; 3 UST 3008; entered into force for the United States March 26, 1952), Massachusetts was requiring Swiss citizens to obtain a Massachusetts license to drive in the State. Mr. Shealey's letter noted, however, that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles of Massachusetts was empowered to enter into arrangements with respect to road traffic matters, and could agree to any mutually satisfactory arrangement with the Swiss Government within constitutional limits.

Dept. of State File No. P76 0119-601.

§ 10

Agriculture and Labor

Right to Food

On September 16, 1976, the United States Senate agreed to Senate Concurrent Resolution 138, the "Right-to-Food Resolution." It expressed the sense of Congress that every person has the right to a nutritionally adequate diet; that the need to combat hunger at home and abroad should be a fundamental objective of U.S. policy; and that the United States should expand and emphasize its support of selfhelp development efforts in countries most seriously affected by hunger and malnutrition.

The House of Representatives passed a similar resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 737, on September 21, 1976, which included, in addition, a request that the President provide to Congress not later than April 1, 1977, a five-year projection of U.S. international assistance levels consistent with the objectives set forth in the resolution.

Cong. Rec., Vol. 122, No. 140, Sept. 16, 1976, pp. S15928-15929 (daily ed.); ibid., No. 143, Sept. 21, 1976, pp. H10646-10655, H10715-10716 (daily ed.). See also Hearings on the Right-to-Food Resolution, before the Subcommittee on International Resources, Food, and Energy of the House Committee on International Relations, June 22-29, 1976. S. Con. Res. 138, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., reads as follows:

Whereas in this Bicentennial year we reaffirm our national commitment to the inalienable right of all to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, none of which can be realized without food to adequately sustain and nourish life, and we recall that the right to food and freedom from hunger was set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the World Food Conference Declaration of 1974; and

Whereas the report entitled "The Assessment of the World Food Situation", prepared for the 1974 World Food Conference, estimated that four hundred and sixty million persons, almost half of them young children, are malnourished; and Whereas nearly half of the human race lives on diets seriously deficient in proteins or other essential nutrients; and

Whereas most of this hunger and malnutrition is suffered by the poor in developing countries whose poverty prevents them from obtaining adequate food; and Whereas the demand for food is accelerating and the unprecedented growth in population will add a billion persons to the world's population in less than fifteen years; and

Whereas the Food and Agriculture Organization, and other recognized authorities, currently estimate that by 1985 the developing countries will experience an annual food deficit of eighty-five million tons; and

Whereas it is in the interest of the United States and all nations to overcome food shortages which cause human suffering and generate economic and political instability; and

Whereas the United States proposed, and all nations at the World Food Conference of 1974 accepted, the bold objective "that within a decade no child will go to bed hungry, that no family will fear for its next day's bread, and that no human being's future and capacities will be stunted by malnutrition"; and

Whereas the international community has repeatedly urged the industrialized nations to increase their official development assistance to seven-tenths of 1 per centum of their total national production (GNP); and

Whereas the elimination of global hunger and malnutrition cannot succeed without expanded self-help efforts by the developing countries: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that

(1) the United States reaffirms the right of every person in this country and throughout the world to food and a nutritionally adequate diet; and

(2) the need to combat hunger shall be a fundamental point of reference in the formulation and implementation of United States policy in all areas which bear on hunger including international trade, monetary arrangements, and foreign assistance; and

(3) in the United States, we should seek to improve food assistance programs for all those who are in need, to insure that all eligible recipients have the opportunity to receive a nutritionally adequate diet, and to reduce unemployment and insure a level of economic decency for everyone; and

(4) the United States should expand and emphasize its assistance for self-help development among the world's poorest people, especially in countries seriously affected by hunger and malnutrition, with particular emphasis on increasing food production and encouraging more equitable patterns of food distribution and economic growth; and such assistance, in order to be effective, should be coordinated with expanded efforts by international organizations, donor nations and the recipient countries to provide a nutritionally adequate diet for all.

International Structures for Food Assistance Food Aid

The U.N. Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Fund for Agricultural Development, which met at Rome June 10-13, 1976, adopted an Agreement Establishing the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). It also adopted a resolution establishing a Preparatory Commission for the Fund (Prepcom). The initiative for establishing IFAD came from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) at the November 1974 World Food Conference, and was supported by the United States in the Ministerial Council of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) at Paris on May 28, 1975. See the 1975 Digest, p. 684.

IFAD is a proposed $1 billion multilateral mechanism to provide OPEC and OECD countries with an opportunity to cooperate in the financing of increased food production in the developing world on highly concessional terms. It would emphasize assistance to the poor food-deficit countries.

The agreement establishing the Fund provides that it is to be opened for signature at U.N. Headquarters in New York as soon as initial contributions indicated in Schedule I of the agreement to be made in freely convertible currencies amount to at least the equivalent of 1,000 million U.S. dollars (valued as of June 10, 1976). If that requirement had not been fulfilled by September 30, 1976, the Prepcom was to convene by January 31, 1977, a meeting of states to establish other conditions for opening the agreement for signature. The Prepcom met in Rome September 27-30, 1976, to discuss the interim steps required to establish IF AD. In a statement issued after the Prepcom meeting, the United States expressed optimism that sufficient pledges would be forthcoming to permit early establishment of IFAD. The United States announced its own pledge of $200 million, contingent on a total level of pledges of $1 billion and