three months, by the governments in consultation, they would refer the issue for impartial settlement in accordance with paragraph 10. Should it be determined by agreement or arbitration that one country had failed unreasonably to meet an agreed developmental timetable, it would forfeit in whole or in part its rights of purchase under the Agreement in respect of that shared-access zone until the situation was rectified.

4. If the volume of hydrocarbons produced from a shared-access zone by one country exceeded the volume of hydrocarbons produced from that zone by the other country by more than an agreed minimum during the calendar year, during the succeeding year the country with the larger production from that zone would make available for purchase by the other country a volume of hydrocarbons in an amount equal to half the difference.'

5. Any transaction under the Agreement would be exempt from any form of export restriction. and deliveries pursuant to the Agreement would be in addition to exports which would have been permitted in absence of the Agreement.

6. The price and origin of hydrocarbons sold pursuant to the Agreement would be negotiated freely between buyer and seller. However, in the event that either country believed an additional quantity of hydrocarbons should be made available, but had not been, for purchase pursuant to the Agreement, the two governments would consult with a view to discharging the responsibility of the surplus country to make available for purchase at the world market price of oil or the equivalent commodity value of gas any quantity of hydrocarbons necessary to carry out the purpose of the Agreement, and the government of any surplus country would undertake responsibility for making up any remaining deficit.

7. It would be the responsibility of the country with an obligation to make hydrocarbons available for purchase to inform the other country of arrangements made to effectuate the commitment and of sales made pursuant to those arrangements.

8. Sales made pursuant to the Agreement would be free of any export charges or other taxes except income taxes and royalties.

9. For the purposes of this Agreement, obligations to make oil available for purchase would be determined separately from obligations to make natural gas available for purchase.

10. Any dispute arising in respect of the interpretation or application of the Agreement would be resolved by consultation, or failing agreement, by impartial procedures for dispute settlement. (Specific procedures for dispute settlement should be developed for inclusion in the Agreement.)

1 Further consideration is to be given to the question of whether hydrocarbons should be made available from the shared-access zones or from other

sources.

2 Further consideration is to be given to the question of determination of agreed minimums for each zone and of whether clarification is needed as to the noncumulative character of the rights of purchase.

Dept. of State File No. P 78 0045-136.

3

Judicial Settlement; The International Cour of Justice

The International Court of Justice

On October 25, 1977, Robert L. Rosenstock, U.S. Representative to the Sixth Committee (Legal) at the United Nations, made a statement on the review of the Charter and on the strengthening of the role of the organization in which he urged that renewed consideration be given to the utilization of the International Court of Justice

for resolving disputes. Portions of his comments, which deal in part with the advisory jurisdiction of the Court, appear below:

We still too often live by the shibboleths of a decade ago-for example one still hears it said that the International Court of Justice applies old-fashioned rules forged in another era. A careful examination of the recent decisions and opinions of the Court will show the Court to be remarkably progressive in its development of the law and certainly an institution which does not err on the side of insensitivity to contemporary trends or developments in other organs of the United Nations.

We have yet to consider in detail the far ranging possibilities opened up by the Court's own commendable revision of its Rules. Also more consideration should be given to the advisory jurisdiction of the Court. Greater and more imaginative use of the advisory jurisdiction of the Court may be a means of accomplishing much that has previously been considered only in terms of amendments to the Charter or the Statute. Not only may new areas be considered in this context but consideration could be given by the General Assembly pursuant to article 96, paragraph 2 of the Charter to expanding the number of bodies empowered to request an advisory opinion. Indeed limited possibilities even exist within the existing framework for obtaining the advance agreement of interested parties to treat an advisory opinion as binding upon it. My Government for one has agreed with the United Nations to do just that.

Press Release USUN-85 (77), Oct. 28, 1977.

The Charter of the United Nations with the Statute of the International Court of Justice annexed thereto was signed on June 26, 1945 (TS 993; 59 Stat. 1031; 3 Bevans 1153; entered into force for the United States on Oct. 24, 1945). Art. 96 of the U.N. Charter appears below:

1. The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.

2. Other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies, which may at any time be so authorized by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.

The revised Rules of the International Court of Justice, as adopted on May 10, 1972, may be found in XI International Legal Materials 899-918 (July 1972). Arts. 87 through 91 of the revised Rules, under Heading III, Advisory Opinions, appear below:

Article 87

1. In proceedings in regard to advisory opinions, the Court shall, in addition to the provisions of Article 96 of the Charter and Chapter IV of the Statute, apply the provisions of the Articles which follow. It shall also be guided by the provisions of these Rules which apply in contentious cases to the extent to which it recognizes them to be applicable; for this purpose it shall above all consider whether the request for the advisory opinion relates to a legal question actually pending between two or more States.

2. When the body authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to request an advisory opinion informs the Court that its

request necessitates an urgent answer, or the Court finds that an early answer would be desirable, the Court shall take all necessary steps to accelerate the procedure. If the Court is not sitting when such a request is made, it shall be convened for the purpose of proceeding to a hearing and deliberation on the request.

Article 88

All requests for advisory opinion shall be addressed to the Court by the Secretary-General of the United Nations or the chief administrative officer of the organization authorized to make the request. The documents referred to in Article 65, paragraph 2, of the Statute shall be transmitted to the Court at the same time as the request or as soon as possible thereafter, in the number of copies required by the Registry.

Article 89

If the advisory opinion is requested upon a legal question actually pending between two or more States, Article 31 of the Statute shall apply, as also the provisions of these Rules concerning the application of that Article.

Article 90

1. Advisory opinions shall be given after deliberation by the Court. They shall mention the number of judges constituting the majority.

2. Any judge may, if he so desires, attach his individual opinion to the advisory opinion of the Court, whether he dissents from the majority or not, or a bare statement of his dissent.

Article 91

1. The Registrar will in due time inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the appropriate organ of the institution, if any, which requested the advisory opinion, as to the date and the hour fixed for the sitting to be held for the reading of the opinion.

2. One original copy of the advisory opinion, duly signed and sealed, shall be placed in the Archives of the Court and another shall be sent to the Secretariat of the United Nations. Certified copies shall be sent by the regis trar to Members of the United Nations and to the States, specialized agencies and public international organizations directly concerned.

Chap. IV of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, entitled Advisory Opinions, appears below:

ARTICLE 65

1. The Court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to make such a request.

2. Questions upon which the advisory opinion of the Court is asked shall be laid before the Court by means of a written request containing an exact statement of the question upon which an opinion is required, and accompanied by all documents likely to throw light upon the question.

ARTICLE 66

1. The Registrar shall forthwith give notice of the request for an advisory opinion to all states entitled to appear before the Court.

2. The Registrar shall also, by means of a special and direct communication, notify any state entitled to appear before the Court or international organization considered by the Court, or, should it not be sitting, by the President, as likely to be able to furnish information on the question, that the Court will be prepared to receive, within a time limit to be fixed by the President. written statements, or to hear, at a public sitting to be held for the purpose, oral statements relating to the question.

3. Should any such state entitled to appear before the Court have failed to receive the special communication referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, such state may express a desire to submit a written statement or to be heard: and the Court will decide.

4. States and organizations having presented written or oral statements or both shall be permitted to comment on the statements made by other states or organizations in the form, to the extent, and within the time limits which

the Court, or, should it not be sitting, the President, shall decide in each particular case. Accordingly, the Registrar shall in due time communicate any such written statements to states and organizations having submitted similar statements.

ARTICLE 67

The Court shall deliver its advisory opinions in open court, notice having been given to the Secretary-General and to the representatives of Members of the United Nations, of other states and of international organizations immediately concerned.

ARTICLE 68

In the exercise of its advisory functions the Court shall further be guided by the provisions of the present Statute which apply in contentious cases to the extent to which it recognizes them to be applicable.

Art. 31 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides in part that "Judges of the nationality of each of the parties shall retain their right to sit in the case before the Court."

The United States is a party to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations done on Feb. 13, 1946 (TIAS 6900; 21 UST 1418; 1 UNTS 16; entered into force for the United States on Apr. 29, 1970). Sec. 30 of the Convention provides for the International Court of Justice to take the following action with regard to differences concerning the Convention and requests for advisory opinions :

All differences arising out of the interpretation or application of the present convention shall be referred to the International Court of Justice, unless in any case it is agreed by the parties to have recourse to another mode of settlement. If a difference arises between the United Nations on the one hand and a Member on the other hand, a request shall be made for an advisory opinion on any legal question involved in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute of the Court. The opinion given by the Court shall be accepted as decisive by the parties.

On January 21, 1977, President Carter signed Proclamation 4483 granting "full, complete and unconditional pardon" to various persons who had violated the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 between August 4, 1964, and March 28, 1973. The text of Proclamation 4483 follows:

Acting pursuant to the grant of authority in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, I, Jimmy Carter, President of the United States, do hereby grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to: (1) all persons who may have committed any offense between August 4, 1964, and March 28, 1973, in violation of the Military Selective Service Act or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder; and (2) all persons heretofore convicted, irrespective of the date of conviction, of any offense committed between August 4, 1964, and March 28, 1973, in violation of the Military Selective Service Act, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, restoring to them full political, civil and other rights.

This pardon does not apply to the following who are specifically excluded therefrom:

(1) All persons convicted of or who may have committed any offense in violation of the Military Selective Service Act, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, involving force or violence; and

(2) All persons convicted of or who may have committed any offense in violation of the Military Selective Service Act, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, in connection with duties or responsibilities arising out of employment as agents, officers or employees of the Military Selective Service system.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 21st day of January, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventyseven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and first.

42 Fed. Reg. 4391-4392 (1977).

President Carter also signed on January 21, 1977, Executive Order 11967 to implement Proclamation 4483. The text of Executive Order 11967 follows: