I to be legal, both an export permit from the country of origin and an import permit from the country of destination are required, except in the case of introduction from the sea where only an import permit is required. Certain findings must be made by a Management Authority and a Scientific Authority in each country before the Management Authority may issue the permit. The permit must be issued along the lines of a format specified in the Convention. For trade in species listed in Appendix II, an export permit must be issued by the country of origin, or, if the specimen is coming from a country other than the country of origin, then a certificate of re-export must be issued. For introduction from the sea of species listed in Appendix II, an import permit is required. The rules for trade in species listed in Appendix III are similar to those for Appendix II, except that in the case of Appendix III, either an export permit must be issued by the country of origin, a re-export certificate must be issued by a country into which that species has previously been imported, or a certificate of origin must be issued if the species is being exported from a country that did not place it in Appendix III. The Convention provides that parties should accept similar documentation to that required by the Convention for trade with countries that are not parties.

The United States ratified the Convention and became a party as of July 1, 1975. On April 13, 1976, the President signed Executive Order Number 11911 which names the Department of the Interior as the Management Authority under the Convention for the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Federal Wildlife Permit Office in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This made it possible for the United States to begin implementing the Convention.

42 Fed. Reg. 10462-10463 (1977). For further information see 42 Fed. Reg. 10464-10488 (1977).

Whaling

In Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950, a case involving the International Whaling Commission's moratorium on the killing of bowhead whales, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren E. Burger denied the request of the petitioners, who represented certain Alaskan Eskimo whaling interests. The petitioners sought a stay of the order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacating the temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge John J. Sirica (77-1834), which would have required Secretary of State Vance to file an objection to the Commission's complete moratorium on the killing of bowhead whales.

In June 1977, the Commission decided to delete the previously existing "aboriginal exemption" from the ban on the killing of bowhead whales. This exemption allowed aboriginal whaling of gray and right (bowhead) whales for subsistence purposes and thus permitted nine Eskimo villages in northeast Alaska to harvest whales. On October 21, 1977, at petitioners' request, Judge Sirica issued his temporary restraining order, which the court of appeals vacated on October 24, 1977, with a finding that even a provisional objection by the United States to the Commission's deletion of the "aboriginal exemption" would prejudice U.S. efforts to protect marine mammals. Chief Justice Bur

ger's denial of the petitioners' request just prior to the deadline for the filing of an objection at midnight on October 24, 1977, Greenwich. meantime, left standing the order of the court of appeals vacating the temporary restraining order.

U.S. Supreme Court file.

The text of the per curium order of the court of appeals, issued by Harold Leventhal, Spottswood W. Robinson III, and Malcolm Richard Wilkey, reads as follows:

This cause came on for consideration of appellants' motion for summary reversal and appellees' motion to dismiss and the Court heard argument of counsel.

The Court is of the view that it has jurisdiction of the appeal from the order requiring the Secretary of State to file an objection. The Court is further of the view that this order should be vacated. The district court assumed that there would be no injury to the United States if an objection were filed by the United States with the International Whaling Commission because such an objection could be withdrawn. However, the possibility of injury to the United States even from a provisional objection is set forth in the affidavits filed in this Court and similar assertions in the Environmental Impact Statement, in terms of prejudicing the ongoing efforts of the United States Government to establish and administer an effective international machinery for the protection of marine mammals.

On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED by the Court that the order of the district court be, and the same hereby is, vacated. Our order is issued without accompanying opinion in consideration of the time emergency.

U.S. App. Ct. D.C., No. 77-1960.

Set forth below is a portion of the memorandum in support of the motion for summary reversal filed on October 23, 1977, by James W. Moorman, Assistant Attorney General, and Edmund B. Clark, Bruce C. Rashkow, and Margaret Strand, attorneys in the Department of Justice:

The United States is a party to the International Whaling Convention of 1946, . . . and a member of the International Whaling Commission established by that Convention. At the annual meeting of the Commission in June 1977, the Commission voted to delete the "aboriginal exemption" for the killing of bowhead whales, in effect setting a zero quota for bowhead whales. The bowhead whale is one of the most severely endangered of all whale species, and has been totally protected from commercial whaling since 1931. (See Press Release and background paper. . . .) Because of the precarious state of the whale stocks, the Commission recommended a total ban on all hunting.

Under the rules of the Whaling Convention (Article V, paragraph 3) changes in regulations become effective 90 days after notification,

except as to a member nation which presents an objection within that period. The period during which the United States can object will expire on October 24, 1977.

Under the Whaling Treaty Act of 1950, 16 U.S.C. 916, et seq., the Secretary of State "is authorized, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, to present or withdraw any objections on behalf of the United States Government to such regulations." 16 U.S.C. 916b. On October 20, 1977, after full consultation with interested branches of the Executive, the Secretary of State announced that he would not file an objection to the deletion of the native exemption for killing of bowhead whales.

It is the United States position that to file an objection at this time could result in the complete dissolution of the International Whaling Commission [IWC] as a viable means of regulating whales and possibly threaten the achievements and efforts of the United States in other areas of international conservation and environmental protection. This could result, at a minimum, in the killing of massive numbers of whales of all species, with resultant irreparable harm not only to the International Commission, but to the whales themselves.

The plaintiffs are Alaskan native whalers with an acknowledged interest in the Whaling Commission decision. The Alaskan whalers hunt for bowhead whales in the spring and in the fall of each year. The zero quota will have no effect on this year's fall hunt, so the only immediate interest revolves around their ability to hunt the bowhead in the spring of 1978. The whale hunt is both for subsistence and plays a central role in the cultural heritage of the Alaskan natives. The United States recognizes and shares the interest and concern the plaintiffs have in the bowhead whale. However, the United States determined that the interests of the Nation would best be served by not filing an objection, while officially seeking to modify the IWC's decision on bowhead whales at its meeting in December 1977.

Memorandum dated Oct. 23, 1977, in support of motion for summary reversal on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Adams v. Vance (77-1960).

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling with Schedule of Whaling Regulations was signed on Dec. 2, 1946 (TIAS 1849; 62 Stat. 1716; 4 Bevans 248; 161 UNTS 72; entered into force for the United States on Nov. 10, 1948).

A portion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, entitled International Whaling Commission's Deletion of Native Exemption for the Subsistence Harvest of Bowhead Whales, and prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce in Oct. of 1977, at pp. 76-81, appears below:

4. Impact on the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and the U.S. Position

If the U.S. were to file an objection to the IWC recommendation, the following could be the effects:

(a) It could affect U.S. efforts to improve whale conservation. Past U.S. actions might be seen as cynical and politically motivated. The U.S. has favored a moratorium and has voted for quota reductions which have had an adverse economic and political effect on other nations.

Decisions supported by the United States over the past several years have resulted in major reductions (60 percent) in the total IWC whale quotas and have caused socio-economic impacts in other countries, particularly Japan. Japanese representatives have argued that the importance of whaling and whale meat to culture, diet, and employment in Japan should be considered when recommending quotas.

(b) Objections by the Soviet Union and Japan and possibly other nations might be filed. An objection by the United States would lessen the reliance of the IWC on the recommendations of its Scientific Committee. The United States has consistently urged the acceptance of IWC Scientific Committee findings, and to object to the first scientific recommendation that adversely affects the United States could lead to objections from other countries. If other nations object to IWC quotas, it is difficult to estimate how high they might decide to set the quotas among themselves. Objections could be placed regardless of U.S. action on the bowhead issue. Catch limits to which these nations might object are as follows:

The U.S. holds the threat of an embargo of fishery products under the Pelly amendment to the Fishermens Protection Act [22 U.S.C. 1791 et seq.]. Economic sanction by unilateral U.S. action appears to have contributed to dissuading member nations from objecting to IWC quotas.

(c) Objections by the United States, Soviet Union, Japan and possible others could lead to a disintegration of the present International Whaling Commission's program, and thus prevent the effective management of the world whale stocks.

(d) Efforts to bring all whaling nations into the IWC could be set back. Several nations have whaling operations which take whales in excess of present IWC established quotas.

(e) Filing an objection would contradict President Carter's public statements and actions of the last four months. IWC actions are consistent with his position of the year and also with past U.S. policies on marine mammal protection. However, the point was raised at the public hearings that President Carter's stance on the issue of human rights also applies to this decision. The Inupiat people emphasize that their cultural ties with the bowhead whale must be maintained. Aside from the international effects on the IWC and the U.S. position favoring strong whale conservation, an objection by the U.S. could also have other effects.

(f) Filing an objection could adversely affect the chances of obtaining a worldwide international convention for the protection of marine mammals sought by the President in his Environmental Message [see ante, Ch. 11, § 1, pp. 841-843] and the United States for the past four years through the IWC.

(g) Because of the symbolic nature of whale conservation, there is an opinion that a U.S. objection and failure of IWC conservation efforts could have severe repercussions on other international conservation interests such as recent Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission [16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), tuna/porpoise agreements, the Endangered Species Convention [Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, with

Appendices done on March 3, 1973 (TIAS 8249; entered into force for the United States on July 1, 1975)], U.S. Bilateral Environmental Agreements with the Soviet Union [Agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection signed on May 23, 1972 (TIAS 7345; 23 UST 845; entered into force May 23, 1972)] and Japan [Agreement between the United States and Japan on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection, with Agreed Minutes signed on August 5, 1975 (TIAS 8172; entered into force August 5, 1975)], and Law of the Sea.

Migratory Birds

Bilateral Agreements

On July 18, 1977, President Carter transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification the Convention between the United States and the Soviet Union Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment, signed at Moscow on November 19, 1976. President Carter noted in his letter of transmittal that this Convention, like the migratory bird conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, and Mexico, is designed to protect migratory birds through international cooperation:

. A fundamental function of this Convention is the identification of species of birds which migrate between the Untied States and the Soviet Union and species of birds which, while not actually migratory between the United States and the Soviet Union, have populations in both States and share common flyways or common breeding, wintering or feeding areas. With respect to these species of birds the Parties undertake certain strict management procedures as well as an ongoing interchange of information regarding the protection of these species.

In addition, . . . this Convention and the legislation which will be submitted to implement it will establish new authority to conserve the habitats necessary to the survival of migratory birds. The Convention contains an undertaking by the Parties to list in an Appendix to the Convention those Migratory Bird Habitats of special importance within the areas under their jurisdiction and, by mutual agreement, those which are outside the areas under their jurisdiction. There are many species of birds which will benefit from the provisions of this Convention, which fills a major gap in the protection of the species of migratory birds which exist in the United States.

*

S. Ex. K, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., III.

The President also transmitted to the Senate the report of the Department of State concerning this Convention. This report, submitted to the President on July 9, 1977, by Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher, described how the provisions of the Convention, inter alia, prohibit the taking and protect the habitat of migratory birds