« PreviousContinue »
The Republic of Panama and the United States are anxious to complete these negotiations as soon as possible and recognize that the other nations represented in this Assembly share that desire. But we have recognized that the complexity of the issues remaining before us requires the most careful and painstaking negotiating efforts if we are to achieve a treaty which is truly just and equitable-a treaty which will balance the respective interests of both countries and those of the other nations of the Hemisphere and the world in such a way as to definitely eliminate the potential for causes of conflict in the future. It is in this sense that both Governments are in agreement with the concept expressed by General Torrijos that we are not simply seeking any new treatywe are seeking a treaty that will fully meet our common goals in the future and be seen by our sister republics as reflecting a new era of cooperation in the Americas. The United States and the Republic of Panama reiterate their commitment to continue their most serious efforts to achieve such a treaty as promptly as possible.
The negotiation offers both peoples a peaceful alternative for the solution of a prolonged disagreement between them, and both Governments are convinced that it is their responsibility to explore to the utmost this path which offers such real possibilities for a satisfactory agreement which will cement on solid foundations the friendship and cooperation between our two countries.
If we continue the serious work presently being carried out and if we maintain the reciprocal good will of both missions towards reaching a solution to the pending problems, we cherish the hope that soon we will be able to advise you that a treaty has been agreed upon, a treaty which not only all America, but the entire world, awaits as an effective contribution to consolidate peace and friendship amongst all peoples.
Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXV, No. 1932, July 5, 1976, pp. 12–13. For the U.S.Panama Joint Declaration of April 3, 1964, see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol.L, No. 1296, April 27, 1964, p. 656. For the U.S.-Panama Joint Statement of Principles of Feb. 7, 1974, see the 1974 Digest, p. 355; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXX, No. 1809, Feb. 25, 1974, p. 185. On June 17, 1976, the OASGeneral Assembly adopted Res. 219(VI-0/76), which, inter alia, noted “as a positive contribution" the U.S.-Panama report.
Section 104 of the Department of State Appropriation Act, 1977 (P.L. 94-362; 90 Stat. 942), approved July 14, 1976, provides:
It is the sense of the Congress that any new Panama Canal treaty or agreement must protect the vital interests of the United States in the Canal Zone and in the operation, maintenance, property and defense of the Panama Canal. For a discussion of the origin of this provision, see the 1975 Digest, pp. 436-438.
On October 27, 1976, William R. Drummond, a Canal Zone labor leader, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of the Canal Zone seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction against continuation of U.S. negotiations with Panama for a new canal treaty. The case, Drummond v. Bunker, Kissinger, and Ford, Civil No. 76-0353-B, sought to enjoin President Ford, Secretary of
State Kissinger, and Ambassador-at-Large Ellsworth Bunker from continuing the negotiations absent prior congressional authorization. A petition to intervene in the suit was filed with the District Court on November 24, 1976, by Senators Strom Thurmond, James A. McClure, and Jesse A. Helms, and Congressmen Daniel J. Flood, M. G. Snyder, and Larry McDonald. On December 3, 1976, the U.S. Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and because it presented a political question beyond the jurisdiction of courts. Additionally, he maintained that the claimed injury was so abstract as to present a case not ripe for judicial determination.
The District Court in the Canal Zone dismissed the case on December 17, 1976, after first granting the motion of the six Members of Congress to intervene in the case. Dismissal was on the basis that the U.S. District Court for the District of the Canal Zone has no statutory authority to acquire in personam jurisdiction of defendants who are not physically present in the Zone. The statute, 28 U.S.C. 1391e, which provides for service of a summons and complaint by certified mail (the method used of serving defendants in this case) is not applicable to the U.S. District Court for the District of the Canal Zone.
On Jan. 14, 1977, a similar but not identical suit, Jesse A. Helms, et al. v. Kissinger, Bunker, and Ford, Civil Action No. 77-0083, was brought in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the defendants solely in their official capacities. Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance and President Jimmy Carter were subsequently substituted for Secretary Kissinger and President Ford. The new action did not request injunctive relief. Plaintiffs, including six Members of Congress, as well as William R. Drummond, sought a “declaration of the exclusive constitutional authority of the Congress in the premises, reserving their right to seek other and further relief if and when circumstances warrant it.” On Feb. 3, 1977, plaintiffs moved to stay further action by defendants to change the status quo in the Canal Zone pending determination of this action on the merits.” On Feb. 22, 1977, defendants moved to dismiss the case. Oral argument was scheduled for Feb. 28, 1977.
§ 8 Ports
Deepwater Ports Secretary of Transportation William T. Coleman, Jr., on December 17, 1976, approved two applications for licenses to build the first deepwater ports of the United States in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas. The action was taken pursuant to the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 2126; 33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), approved January 3, 1975, which declared it to be the purpose of Congress to "authorize and regulate the location, ownership, construction, and operation of deepwater ports in waters beyond the territorial limits of the United States.” See the 1974 Digest, pp. 356-360, for a summary of the provisions of the Act.
The applications approved were those of (1) LOOP, Inc., a consortium of six oil companies: Ashland Oil, Inc., Marathon Oil Company, Murphy Oil Corporation, Shell Oil Company, Texaco, Inc., and Union Oil Company of California; and (2) Seadock, Inc., a joint venture backed by Cities Services Company, Continental Oil Company, Crown-Central Petroleum Corporation, Dow Chemical Company, Exxon Corporation, Gulf Oil Corporation, Mobil Oil Corporation, Phillips Petroleum Company, and Shell Oil Company. LOOP applied to build a port 18 miles south of Grand Isle, Louisiana, and Seadock to build a port 26 miles offshore, south of Freeport, Texas. Both ports were designed to handle oil from supertankers and to be built in water over 100 feet deep. When completed, their planned combined capacity was to be 7.4 million barrels of oil per day.
Secretary Coleman announced that, in line with recommendations from the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other agencies, the licenses would contain environmental conditions, including controls on any project changes and construction of pipelines, measures to minimize harm to wildlife in wetlands, and environmental monitoring throughout the project's life. Secretary Coleman also stated that he had substantially followed the antitrust advice of the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission in approving the applications, and that the license conditions and continual monitoring would help to insure nondiscriminatory access to all shippers and prevent any adverse effect on competition, restraint of trade, or tendency toward monopoly.
Secretary Coleman established the following conditions for the licenses:
(1) The ports must provide open and nondiscriminatory access to all shippers, both owners and nonowners. The Coast Guard will consult with the Justice Department on conditions of service and limitations imposed by the licensee on vessels and cargoes. The operations manual for the ports will include a proration policy when the oil being delivered exceeds a port's capacity.
(2) The ports can be ordered to increase their capacity to the limits set in the application. In addition, the Secretary can compel the ports to expand an additional 25 percent in a situation where excess demand of shippers is demonstrated and the expansion is "technically practical, economically reasonable, financially feasible and environmentally sound.”
In addition, policies for prorating oil volume and conditions of service will require Department of Transportation (DOT) review and approval. Any shareholder or group can authorize the port corporation to expand the facilities. The license also will prohibit shareholders from preferential purchases of shares from other owners, and shares must be made available to outside shippers when a port expands and new financing is required. Moreover, shareholders at three-year intervals will readjust their interest so each owner's share equals his average volume.
(3) Effective rate regulation of deepwater ports is necessary to make sure their economic efficiencies are passed on to the consumer. Secretary Coleman said, however, that Congress explicitly vested the power in the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and he could not properly duplicate that authority in the licensing process. DOT will work closely with the ICC and the Department of Justice to bring about the necessary changes in rate-making rules which will give the consumer a better break, the Secretary said.
(4) DOT will exercise some control over onshore pipelines that connect the port with the existing inland pipeline distribution network. The licenses will provide for review by DOT of joint arrangements between the ports and commonly owned or controlled pipelines. Conditions of service must be consistent with those of the port. In addition, nonowner shippers must be provided with storage for oil until it can enter connecting pipelines and the facilities for delivery of the oil to the connecting pipelines.
Dept. of Transportation News Release (DOT 94-76), Dec. 17, 1976. For the text of the Secretary's decision, see Dept. of Transportation, U.S.A., The Secretary's Decision on the Deepwater Port License Application of LOOP, Inc., Dec. 17, 1976, and The Secretary's Decision on the Deepwater Port License Application of Seadock, Inc., Dec. 17, 1976. On Jan. 18, 1977, the Dept. of Transportation announced that Secretary Coleman had signed the licenses to permit LOOP and Seadock to build deepwater ports in the Gulf of Mexico. Dept. of Transportation News Release (DOT 17-72), Jan. 18, 1977. Texts of the licenses, the transmittal letter from Secretary Coleman to the owners, and a section-by-section analysis of the licenses are available from the Office of Deepwater Ports, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590. § 9 Marine Environment
General At the fifth session of the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, August 2-September 17, 1976, negotiations on marine pollution were devoted to specific problems, in particular, standard-setting in the territorial sea. U.S. objectives and the negotiations were described in the U.S. Delegation Report for the session as follows:
The principal objective was to strike a balance between the protection of the marine environment and facilitation of navigation and trade. In principle, part III of the Revised Single Negotiating Text does so. The specific objectives of the United States were: (1) to ensure that the coastal state has authority to establish and enforce standards for all vessels navigating in innocent passage in its territorial sea, (b) to strengthen the new port state enforcement regime, (c) to preserve the careful balance between coastal state and navigational rights in the economic zone, and (d) to extend the flag state obligation to include deep sea mining vessels. Additionally, we had prepared a number of clarifying amendments to the vessel pollution and other articles.
At the outset of the session, Chairman Yankov (Bulgaria)
identified the issue of standard-setting in the territorial sea as the major outstanding issue. The United States and several other states proposed deleting restrictions not to hamper innocent passage. All of the maritime states and a number of developing countries with maritime aspirations, opposed this position. Chairman Yankov indicated that the issue was not resolved and that further discussions were needed.
Informal committee and small group negotiating sessions were held continuously during the session to discuss other aspects of vessel source pollution. Large numbers of amendments were suggested, most of which would upset the delicate balance between coastal and port state powers to protect the environment and the rights of navigation. With few exceptions, the amendments received little support and the existing text was confirmed.
A new paragraph relating to coastal state rights to establish standards in special areas of the economic zone was negotiated and generally agreed. The text clarifies the procedure for establishing such standards and assigns a major role to the competent international organization (Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization). ..
U.S. Delegation Report, 3d U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, 5th Sess., Aug. 2-Sept. 17, 1976, pp. 15/16, Dept. of State File D/LOS. For the RSNT produced at the 4th Sess., see U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.8/Rev. 1/Part III, May 6, 1976, pp. 5-23.
Marine Vessel Pollution U.S. Regulations
On December 13, 1976, the U.S. Coast Guard issued revised regulations designed to reduce pollution from seagoing U.S. tank vessels engaged in foreign trade and foreign tank vessels carrying oil into U.S. waters. The new regulations constitute part 157 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, with an effective date of April 1, 1977, except for certain existing vessels. The regulations extend pollution prevention regulations previously in effect for U.S. tank vessels in domestic trade.
The revised rules require new and existing foreign vessels entering U.S. ports to meet the same design and equipment requirements as new and existing U.S. tank vessels, including provisions for segregated ballast on new tankers over 70,000 deadweight tons.
The operating requirements for foreign vessels and U.S. vessels continue to differ. Regulations governing discharge of oily mixtures from U.S. vessels on the high seas were not applied to foreign ships on the high seas because of U.S. jurisdictional limits.
There is a segregated ballast requirement for new foreign and U.S. vessels, designed to reduce the number of oil spills from tanker collisions and groundings. A regulation for new vessels requires slop tanks for consolidating waste from tank washings, oil residues, and dirty ballast residues, and tanks for collecting oil residue.