no greater obligation to agree to any specific tariff reduction after the ITO comes into being than it is now. If a member fails to negotiate with another member looking toward tariff reductions, the most that the Organization can do is to release the other member from its most-favored-nation obligations to the first member under article 16, but the decision whether or not to act (that is, to withhold tariff benefits) rests with the member governments and not with the Organization. Basically, the same situation exists with respect to other provisions of the charter which authorize the Organization to take action. For example, under articles 21 and 22, a member may, under certain circumstances, impose import quotas in order to safeguard its balance of payments. The Organization may, under certain circumstances, release a member from compliance with certain of its charter obligations to a member which imposes such quotas unjustifiably. The functions of the Organization, however, are limited to releasing a member from an obligation which it will have voluntarily assumed under or pursuant to the charter. Provisions of this kind do not justify a statement that there is a delegation to an international body of congressional jurisdiction over foreign commerce, duties, imposts, and excises. The second legal proposition which needs some exploration in view of Mr. Barnes' discussion is whether or not the ITO Charter is a "self-exécuting" document or whether congressional action to change domestic law where required is necessary. In other words, do the provisions of the charter automatically by virtue of our joining the Organization become part of our law or, where existing domestic legislation is inconsistent with a charter provision, is positive remedial legislation enacted by Congress necessary? The question whether a treaty, convention, or other international agreement is "self-executing" is a matter of intention, which is derived from the form, content, and other circumstances surrounding the particular agreement. (See In Re Sheazle, 21 Fed. Cas. 1214; Cook v. United States, 288 U. S. 102; The Over the Top, 5 F. (2d) 838.) It is clear from an analysis of the ITO Charter that the provisions of the charter do not, by virtue of our joining the Organization, become "self-executing" as part of the substantive law of the United States. The charter commits members to certain stated principles and to take action in accordance therewith; there is thus an international obligation to act in accordance with the provisions, and to conform local laws to such international commitments. But the intention of the signatories, as disclosed in the language of the charter, in the form of the commitments, and in the substance of the provisions themselves, reveals clearly that the charter provisions do not automatically become part of the substantive law of the United States. Insofar as the language of the charter commitments is concerned, the dominant types of obligations assumed are obligations on the part of members to "take action designed progressively to develop, and where necessary to reconstruct, industrial and other economic resources and raise standards of productivity" (art. 9); to "cooperate with one another * * * in facilitating and promoting industrial and general economic development" (art. 10); to "recognize that measures relating to employment must take fully into account the rights of workers under intergovernmental declarations, conventions and agreements" (art. 7). These and other principles in the charter the members agree to effectuate. But it was never intended that these principles, even where they are stated in more precise but nevertheless generalized language, would automatically become part of the substantive law of the United States without legislative enactment, replacing automatically existing laws which may be inconsistent therewith. A clear indication of this is the form of the charter itself. Only states may be members of the Organization (art. 71) and the rights and obligations set forth in the various provisions of the charter are those of member states, not of individual nationals thereof. The charter does not purport to create rights and obligations on the part of individual nationals in the member states. Thus, the avenue for the settlement of differences is restricted to diplomatic consultation, international arbitration, recourse to the Organization itself, and on legal questions to the International Court of Justice, by member states, not nationals thereof (art. 93-97). And article 92 states that "the members undertake that they will not have recourse, in relation to the members and to the Organization, to any procedure other than the procedure envisaged in this charter for complaints and the settlement of differences arising out of its operation." Since the charter creates no private rights or obligations, there is no provision for private persons as parties in the settlement of differences among member states. Of course, member states being obligated to other member states, each member is obliged to see to it that it is in fact in a position to perform its obligation assumed in the charter. It will, therefore, be necessary for each member to place itself in such a position through the enactment or amendment of domestic laws where necessary to perform obligations assumed. The executive branch has carefully investigated United States domestic law in order to determine in what particulars it needs revision in order that the United States might be able to perform its obligations assumed under the charter following its entry into force and our membership in the Organization. The executive branch has provided, on pages 68-72 of the Record in the present hearings, a statement as to those provisions of United States law needing change because of inconsistency with the obligations which will be assumed by the United States under the charter, and has prepared and will submit specific proposals for legislation which would change existing United States laws in those instances where such change is required by charter provisions. But until such changes are made, United States domestic law will not have been changed, even though the charter comes into force and the United States becomes a member of the Organization before the required amendments are made. Sincerely yours, ADRIAN S. FISHER, Agriculture, United States (see also Exports; Surpluses; Imports; Quanti- American Economic Association___. Resolutions adopted by.. Attitude of_______ American Association of the United Nations, statement of. Resolution adopted by house of delegates of---- Report of international and comparative law section of----- Statement from----. American Cotton Shippers Association. American Farm Bureau Federation (see also Lynn, John C.): Attitude of____ American Federation of Labor: Membership in International Conference of Free Trade Unions__. 678-679 486-7 146, 520-539 542 (See Hohenberg, A. E.) 592 133, 146, 335, 339-340 133, 135, 300 270 679 American National Live Stock Association, statement of__. American Paper & Pulp Association, letter and statement from__ 668-670 126, 369, 383, 551 773-774 155, 170, 269 Americans for Democratic Action, letter from America's Wage Earners Protective Conference (see also Strackbein, 317-319, 329 Andrews, Stanley, Director, Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations, 97 Anthony, Richard H., secretary, American Tariff League, testimony of--- 369–393 13, 48, 50, 63, 64, 97, 101, 107, 108, 134, 138, 148, 157, 185, 189, 190, Barger, Harry S., National Economic Council, testimony of Batt, William L., testimony of... Berge, Hon. Wendell (see also American Bar Association). 299-308 485-499 795-797 111-146 520 Berne Convention. (See International Copyright Union.) Bretton Woods Agreement.... Page 253-255 309-333 215 4, 96, 310 Statement of Congress regarding participation of the United States in Supplementary statement of Testimony of__. Brookings Institution, report of, on ITO.... 596-597 124, 133, 592 271, 285 Brophy, John, CIO delegate to Habana.. Excerpt from testimony of, before Senate Finance Committee. 373 40-41, 74-75, 80-81, 82-83, 363–364 Bureau of Customs... 98 Business groups in United States, attitude of, toward ITO_. 132, 133, 142 124 C California alien property ownership law. (See United States law, treaty California Almond Growers Exchange, statement of 12, 26, 27, 36, 38, 39, 40, 123, 143, 271–272, 313–314, 315, 355, 381, 387, Ceramics. (See Pottery industry.) Ceylon--- Charter of the International Trade Organization: 215, 216 41, 46, 47, 242, 286, 339, 360, 362–365, 374, 376, 421, 424, 428, 450, 487, Amendment of.. By interpretation__ Central principles of 601-602 Commitments under---3, 507, 15, 24, 40, 91, 119, 147, 195, 197, 281, 282, 601, 796 Criticisms of__ 124, Entry into force.. Exceptions in (see also Escape clause). 243, 416 7, 13-14, 48, 49, 88, 122, 123, 133-135, 139, 148, 160, 166, 260, 264, 276, Limitations of Objectives of Legal recourse under (see also International Court of Justice) _____ 367, 5, 10, 11, 64, 129, 155, 156, 177, 277, 319, 336, 358, 372, 395–396, 411- Origins of____ Ratifications of___ 256, 264, 365, 371, 447, 470, 472, 484, 521, 562, 576 -90, 127, 128, 132, 166, 242, 283, 284, 286, 388, --- |