national agreement or otherwise, and does not require authorization under section 33 of the Act.

Language in the House bill (H.R. 7936) which would have included measures" other than international agreements within the Act's definition of "disarmament" was deleted prior to enactment. 2 Mr. Warnke so testified to the Committee on Foreign Relations on September 26.

The International Court of Justice has ruled that in some circumstances a state may be legally bound by a unilateral statement. (Nuclear Test Cases, Australia v. France and New Zealand v. France, Judgment of 29 Dec. 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, pp. 253 and 457.) However, that decision turned on the intent of the declaring state to be bound and the likelihood of reliance by other states on the binding character of the declaration. Its rationale is not applicable in the present circumstances in which the United States has publicly made clear that it does not intend its statement to be binding.

123 Cong. Rec. S 16128 (daily ed. Oct. 3, 1977).

The Interim Agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union on Certain Measures with Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms with Protocol was signed on May 26, 1972 (TIAS 7504; 23 UST 3462; entered into force on Oct. 3, 1972).

The Treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems was signed on May 26, 1972 (TIAS 7503; 23 UST 3435; entered into force on Oct. 3, 1972).

The text of the statement issued by the Soviet Union on Sept. 24, 1977, as reported on Sept. 26, 1977, in Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), reads as follows:

. . In accordance with the readiness expressed by both sides to complete within the near future the work on a new agreement limiting strategic offensive arms and in the interests of maintaining the status quo while the talks on the new agreement are being concluded, the Soviet Union expresses its intention to keep from any actions incompatible with the provisions of the interim agreement on some measures pertaining to the limitation of strategic offensive arms which expires on October 3, 1977, and with the goals of the talks that are being conducted, provided that the United States of America shows the same restraint.

On September 22, 1977, Representative Clement J. Zablocki, Chairman of the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives, and Representative William S. Broomfield, Ranking Minority Member of that committee, sent Secretary Vance a letter supporting the policy outlined in Secretary Vance's September 21 letter. The text of the September 22, 1977, letter from Chairman Zablocki and Representative Broomfield follows:

We fully support the efforts you and the President are making to facilitate an early and successful conclusion of the SALT II negotiations. Your letter of September 21 describes a policy declaration you will make indicating the intentions of the U.S. Government to take no action that would be inconsistent with the Interim

Agreement which will expire on October 3. We appreciate the desirability of such a unilateral statement and we are confident that the Soviet Union understands that we expect them to exercise similar restraint.

It is our view that under existing circumstances a unilateral policy declaration along the lines you indicated would not constitute an international agreement. We believe such a declaration would be preferable to a joint statement which would raise questions as to whether congressional approval would be necessary. In our opinion, no such approval would be required for the nonbinding arrangement you have outlined.

We sincerely appreciate the continuing close consultation with you on SALT-related matters.

Dept. of State File No. P78 0019-542.

Chapter 6

STATE TERRITORY, JURISDICTION, AND
JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES

§ 1 State Territory and Territorial Jurisdiction Transfer of Territory With Mexico

In a ceremony at the Department of State in Washington, D.C., Secretary of State Vance and Foreign Secretary Santiago Roel signed on May 26, 1977, an Act approving Minute 257 of the International Boundary and Water Commission and thus confirmed that the relocations of the channel of the Rio Grande stipulated in paragraphs A, B, and C of Article I of the Treaty of November 23, 1970, which entered into force April 18, 1972 (TIAS 7313; 23 UST 371), have been completed. By virtue of their approval, jurisdiction over some 2,340 acres was transferred between the two countries, and for the first time since soon after the U.S.-Mexico Boundary Survey of 1853, the Rio Grande marks the undisputed international boundary at all points on its entire international reach from El Paso, Texas, to the Gulf of Mexico.

Dept. of State Press Release No. 232 (May 26, 1977). For details concerning the U.S.-Mexican Boundary Treaty of 1970, see S. Ex. B, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. Art. I of the 1970 Boundary Treaty reads as follows:

ARTICLE I

In order to resolve the pending boundary cases of the Presidio-Ojinaga Tracts, the Horcon Tract, Beaver Island, and islands, in which the territory of one of the Contracting States has been placed on the opposite bank of the Rio Grande, and to restore this river as the international boundary, the United States and Mexico have decided to modify the position of the Rio Grande in certain reaches, in accordance with the following terms:

A. To change the location of a section of the channel of the Rio Grande in the area of the Presidio-Ojinaga Tracts, so as to transfer from the north to the south side of the Rio Grande an area of 1606.19 acres (650 hectares). This relocation shall be effected so that the middle of the new channel follows the alignment shown on the map of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"), entitled Relocation of the Rio Grande in the Presidio—Ojinaga Tracts, attached to and forming a part of this Treaty.

B. To change the location of the channel of the Rio Grande upstream from and near Hidalgo-Reynosa, so as to transfer from the south to the north of the Rio Grande an area of 481.68 acres (194.93 hectares). This relocation shall be effected so that the middle of the rectified channel follows the alignment shown on the Commission's map entitled Relocation of the Rio Grande Up

stream from Hilalgo-Reynosa, attached to and forming a part of this Treaty. C. To change the location of the channel of the Rio Grande downstream from and near Presidio-Ojinaga, so as to transfer from the south to the north of the Rio Grande an area of 252 acres (101.98 hectares). This relocation shall be effected so that the middle of the rectified channel follows the alignment shown on the Commission's map entitled Relocation of the Rio Grande Downstream from Presidio-Ojinaga, attached to and forming a part of this Treaty. D. Once this Treaty has come into force and the necessary legislation has been enacted for carrying it out, the two Governments shall determine, on the basis of a recommendation by the Commission, the period of time appropriate for each of them to carry out the following operations:

(1) The acquisition, in conformity with its laws, of the lands to be transferred to the other and of the rights of way for the new river channels; (2) The orderly evacuation of the occupants of the lands referred to in paragraph D (1) of this Article.

E. The changes in location of the Rio Grande referred to in paragraphs A, B and C of this Article, shall be executed by the Commission as soon as practical in accordance with the engineering plans recommended by it and approved by the two Governments. The cost of these changes in location shall be equally divided between the two Governments, through an appropriate division of work recommended by the Commission in the same engineering plans.

F. On the date on which the two Governments approve the Commission's Minute confirming the completion of the relocations of the channel of the Rio Grande provided for in paragraphs A, B and C of this Article, the change of location of the international boundary shall be effected in each case and the middle of the new channels of the Rio Grande and of the present channels north of the Horcon Tract and north of Beaver Island shall become the international boundary; and consequently the following territorial adjustments shall take place:

(1) By reason of the rectification referred to in paragraph A of this Article, there shall pass from the north to the south of the Rio Grande within the territory of Mexico, 1606.19 acres (650 hectares) in the Presidio-Ojinaga Tracts. (2) By reason of the rectification referred to in paragraph B of this Article, there shall pass from the south to the north of the Rio Grande 481.68 acres (194.93 hectares) to form a part of the territory of the United States. This transfer is in recognition of the fact that the Horcon Tract and Beaver Island, located south of the Rio Grande, comprising a total area of 481.68 acres (194.93 hectares) now under the sovereignty of the United States shall pass to and become part of the territory of Mexico.

(3) By reason of the rectification referred to in paragraph C of this Article, there shall pass from the south to the north of the Rio Grande 252 acres (101.98 hectares) to form a part of the territory of the United States. This transfer is in recognition of the fact that, upon the adoption of the new boundary in accordance with Article II of this Treaty, Mexico will receive a greater number and acreage of islands than the United States.

U.S.-Canadian Boundaries

On March 3, 1977, David A. Gantz, Assistant Legal Adviser for European Affairs of the Department of State, wrote Richard L. Fowler, Director of the Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a letter concerning the intention of the U.S.Canadian International Boundary Commission to clear the boundary vista between the United States and Canada in areas of the State of Washington and the Province of British Columbia. The proposed action would involve clearing a ten-foot strip on each side of the boundary line. On the U.S. side, the strip would run through an area

designated as the Pasayten Wilderness pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 90e-2. Portions of Mr. Gantz' letter concerning the authority of the International Boundary Commission to keep this boundary vista open follow:

[T]he International Boundary Commission (IBC) is a binational organization charged with the delineation, demarcation, and maintenance of the international boundary between the continental United States border States, Alaska and Canada (see 3 Whiteman, Digest of International Law 722 et seq.).

Stemming from an agreement of the Commissioners on December 28, 1908, the 1908 Treaty was implemented in part by a decision "that the boundary through timbered areas should be further marked by a vista along the line of sufficient width to give a cleared 20-foot sky line." Thus the IBC continued the practice of earlier surveyors which permits ready identification of the boundary in forested areas on land and from the air, and assists in accurate surveying.

The Commission's principal border-wide responsibilities at the present time derive from article IV of the 1925 Treaty which in relevant part provides as follows:

. . . And whereas boundary monuments deteriorate and at times are destroyed or damaged; and boundary vistas become closed by the growth of timber;

And whereas changing conditions require from time to time that the boundary be marked more precisely and plainly by the establishment of additional monuments or the relocation of existing monuments;

The Contracting Parties, in order to provide for the maintenance of an effective boundary line between the United States and the Dominion of Canada, as established or to be established, and for the determination of the location of any point thereof, which may become necessary in the settlement of any question that may arise between the two Governments hereby agree that the Commissioners appointed under the provisions of the Treaty of April 11, 1908, are hereby jointly empowered and directed: to inspect the various sections of the boundary line between the United States and the Dominion of Canada and between Alaska and the Dominion of Canada at such times as they shall deem necessary; to repair all damaged monuments and buoys; to relocate and rebuild monuments which have been destroyed; to keep the boundary vistas open; . . . [and] to maintain at all times an effective boundary line. . . .

While not specifying a twenty-foot strip centered on the boundary, article IV was premised on the longstanding practice of the Commission regarding the twenty-foot "sky line vista."

The United States has not enacted implementing legislation conferring on the Commission or its employees the right to enter onto private lands to clear the boundary vista or otherwise discharge its responsibilities. Nor is the Commission specifically authorized under United States law to prohibit construction or other activity in the United States within ten feet of the boundary on privately held