forms of financial, technical and material assistance to Mozambique to enable it to overcome the economic difficulties arising from its application of economic sanctions against the racist regime in Southern Rhodesia. For the full text of Res. 386 and Ambassador Bennett's statement, see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIV, No. 1920, Apr. 12, 1976, pp. 496-497. See also U.N. Doc. S/PV. 1892, Mar. 17, 1976, for Amb. Bennett's statement. On April 6, 1976, the U.N. Security Council approved unanimously Resolution 388 (1976), which broadened economic sanctions against Southern Rhodesia in force since 1968 to include insurance, trade names, and franchises. The United States joined all other Council members in cosponsoring the resolution. A number of Council members noted U.S. cosponsorhip with satisfaction and called for the United States to move further by cutting off imports of chrome under the Byrd amendment. See the 1973 Digest, pp. 413-414, the 1974 Digest, p. 598, and the 1975 Digest, pp. 693-695. Ambassador William W. Scranton, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, made a statement following passage of the resolution, in which he said: * The United States has scrupulously enforced sanctions against Rhodesia, except with regard to the importation of Rhodesian minerals under the so-called Byrd amendment. The United States reports to the Security Council's Sanctions Committee in detail every shipload of these minerals imported into the United States under this domestic legislation. From its very first days in office, the administration of President Ford has supported the repeal of the Byrd amendment. This continues to be United States policy. We wish once again to be able to say that the United States is in full compliance with United Nations sanctions. We recognize the need to repeal the Byrd amendment not only for the intended effect in Southern Rhodesia but also in the interest of upholding our international obligations. In the same spirit, my delegation urges the governments of those nations whose major violations are less well publicized to take all appropriate steps to tighten their administration of the sanctions imposed by Security Council Resolution 253 (1968). The United States remains firm both in support of United Nations resolutions which have condemned the illegal Smith regime and in our commitment to the implementation of the principles of of self-determination and majority rule in Rhodesia. Res. 388 declares in its operative paragraphs that the Security Council: 1. Decides that all Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that their nationals and persons in their territories do not insure: (a) Any commodities or products exported from Southern Rhodesia after the date of this resolution in contravention of Security Council Resolution 253 (1968) which they know or have reasonable cause to believe to have been so exported; (b) Any commodities or products which they know or have reasonable cause to believe are destined or intended for importation into Southern Rhodesia after the date of this resolution in contravention of Resolution 253 (1968); (c) Commodities, products or other property in Southern Rhodesia of any commercial, industrial or public utility undertaking in Southern Rhodesia, in contravention of Resolution 253 (1968); 2. Decides that all Member States shall take appropriate measures to prevent their nationals and persons in their territories from granting to any commercial, industrial or public utility undertaking in Southern Rhodesia the right to use any trade name or from entering into any franchising agreement involving the use of any trade name, trade mark or registered design in connection with the sale or distribution of any products, commodities or services of such an undertaking. 3. Urges, having regard to the principle stated in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, States not Members of the United Nations to act in accordance with the provisions of the present resolution. For the full text of Res. 388 and Ambassador Scranton's statement, see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIV, No. 1923, May 3, 1976, pp. 594-595. See also U.N. Doc. S/PV. 1907, Apr. 6, 1976, pp. 16-17. On December 14, 1976, the Fourth (Decolonization) Committee at the United Nations passed by a vote of 121-1(U.S.)-6 a resolution condemning all violations of the mandatory sanctions imposed by the Security Council against Southern Rhodesia, in particular the continued importation of chrome and nickel from Zimbabwe into the United States. It called upon the United States to repeal speedily the legislation permitting such importation. The resolution also reiterated that the scope of the sanctions against the illegal regime must be widened, and it asked the Security Council to consider the necessary measures as a matter of urgency. Richard Petree, U.S. representative in Committee Four, explained the U.S. negative vote: The United States has voted against draft resolution L.46, regarding Rhodesian sanctions-not because we oppose such sanctions or want to see them vitiated in any way. To the contrary, and as members of this Assembly know full well, the United States supports those sanctions against Rhodesia and has been open and frank in those circumstances where the United States has been unable because of domestic legislation to implement the sanctions fully. The United States voluntarily reports fully to the Security Council's Sanctions Committee on imports under the Byrd amendment. [Flor obvious reasons, completely accurate statistics on all Rhodesian exports are not available. However, it is unlikely that United States imports account for more than five percent of total Rhodesian export earnings. Obviously, 95% of the Rhodesian earnings originate elsewhere. Accordingly, we deeply resent being singled out for criticism. In a year when the United States has exerted every effort to bring about the peaceful transition to majority rule in Rhodesia, we believe it petty and unjust for this Assembly to criticize the United States alone for sanctions violations. The resolution applies a double standard in dealing with Rhodesia because, as we all know, there are other countries involved in trade with Rhodesia, some of whom are African countries. Some of those countries have joined in voting for this resolution. My government will not associate itself with this form of hypocrisy. Because we openly and fully report what is permitted by our own domestic legislation, we alone are chastised while other nations go unmentioned for their secret and much more extensive trade with Rhodesia. Press Release USUN-187(76), Dec. 14, 1976. The General Assembly, on December 20, 1976, acting on Committee Four's recommendation, passed Resolution 31/154B by a vote of 124-0-7(U.S.) regarding Rhodesian sanctions. Although the United States voted "no" in the Fourth Committee, it abstained in the plenary on Rhodesian sanctions. Ambassador Albert W. Sherer, Jr., explained: We have changed our vote from committee to plenary so that our position concerning Rhodesian sanctions not be misunderstood in any way, either by the Smith regime or by those with whom we share the deep conviction that majority rule must and will prevail in an independent Zimbabwe. There is no change whatsover in the American Government's strong support of the United Nations sanctions against Rhodesia. At the same time, we wish to make it emphatically clear that we do not accept in this resolution the arbitrary and unfair singling out of the United States for condemnation-a singling out which resulted from United States honesty in reporting sanctions violations. It is well known that many other countries indulge in violations but do not report them. We reject this application of a double standard. As everyone here present is aware, President Ford and Secretary Kissinger are exerting every effort to bring about a peaceful transition to majority rule in Rhodesia. Under such circumstances it is also petty and unjust for this assembly to criticize the United States alone for sanctions violations. Further, so that there never again will be any misunderstanding, the United States puts the General Assembly on notice that any resolution in the future which specifically contains a condemnation of the United States will receive our negative vote. Press Release USUN-196(76), Dec. 20, 1976. General Foreign Boycotts The State of Maryland enacted on May 17, 1976, a law relative to foreign discriminatory boycotts (Senate No. 937) "for the purpose of prohibiting certain persons from furthering or participating in certain discriminatory boycotts against other persons on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex or national origin; and providing for the regulation and administration of this prohibition, and for its enforcement by civil or criminal proceedings and penalties, and generally relating to foreign discriminatory boycotts." The Act added to Chapter 613 a new subtitle 2A, sections 11-2A01 through 11-2A15, Annotated Code of Maryland. A declaration of policy declares the subtitle to be an exercise of the police power of the State, to be administered and principally enforced by the Attorney General of the State. It specifies that the provisions are to be construed liberally so as to effectuate the declaration of policy and the laws and Constitution of the United States, but states nothing therein is to be construed to infringe upon the right of the United States Government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. The Act makes it unlawful to participate knowingly in a discriminatory boycott, or knowingly to aid or assist any person in participating in such a boycott. It requires reporting of violations and production of documents for inspection; provides for cooperation with the Federal Government and other States, the bringing of civil actions, and penalties on conviction not exceeding $50,000 or six months' imprisonment, or both. For the text of the Maryland statute, see also XV, International Legal Materials, No. 3, May 1976, pp. 662-668. Other States which passed anti-boycott laws during 1976 were California (Assembly Bill No. 3080, Ch. 1247, approved Sept. 27, 1976); Massachusetts (Ch. 297 (1976), approved Aug. 18, 1976, inserting Ch. 151E in the General Laws of Massachusetts); Ohio (Substitute House Bill No. 1358, approved July 2, 1976). Regarding antidiscrimination laws relative to boycotts enacted by New York and Illinois, see the 1975 Digest, p. 700. On November 12, 1976, David H. Small, Assistant Legal Adviser for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, Department of State, discussed economic coercion and the Arab boycott before the American Bar Association National Institute on Current Legal Aspects of Doing Business in the Middle East. Concerning the status under international law of economic coercion by one state against another, he discussed the uses made by the United States of measures of economic control, as well as the traditional international law laissez-faire approach and the practice of the United Nations. He stated, in part: Export controls over individual commodities have been imposed under American law for economic and strategic reasons as far back as World War I. The Export Control Act of 1949 [63 Stat. 7; 50 U.S.C. App. 2021-2032] bluntly declared it to be the policy of the United States to use export controls to "further the foreign policy of the United States." Similarly, its replacement legislation, the Export Administration Act of 1969 [83 Stat. 841; 50 U.S.C. App. 2401-2413], declared it to be United States policy "to use its economic resources and trade potential to further. its national security and foreign policy objectives." The Trading With the Enemy Act [40 Stat. 415; 50 U.S.C. App 1 et seq.] authorizes farreaching blocking actions against persons who are "designated nationals" of an enemy. Such persons . . . need not be nationals of an enemy state. Indeed, U.S. citizens could be so designated. ... [T]hese acts gave rise to an extensive, complex system of regulations, which include the grouping of countries into different categories for different treatment with respect to U.S. exports. Similarly, the United States has established separate tariff schedules treating imports differently, depending on country of origin, and basing classification on political or ideological orientation. The Treasury Regulations under the Trading With the Enemy Act place political restrictions on the use of U.S. dollars or dollar accounts by anyone anywhere . . . Similarly, dollar accounts belonging, for example, to the People's Republic of China, or persons resident there, were frozen by the U.S. Treasury wherever these accounts were located, and some were in European banks. Beyond such controls, the United States has, on occasion, initiated total boycotts against other countries, such as the trade embargoes imposed upon North Korea, North Vietnam, and Cuba. Traditional international law adopted a laissez-faire approach toward the economic rights and duties of states, and it has long been considered an inherent right of an independent, sovereign state to exercise full control over its trade relations, including the withholding of exports and prohibition of imports with respect to any other state or states, absent treaty commitments to the contrary . . . The Charter of the United Nations contains a number of very important and far-reaching restrictions on the use of armed force, but it says nothing at all about restrictions on the use of economic measures of coercion by individual states or groups of states. Conceivably, economic measures could give rise to a dispute, "the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security" within the meaning of article 33 of the Charter, but even that is nowhere made clear. Economic pressure may be unfriendly and even unfair, but economic coercion, per se, cannot generally be said to be prohibited by the U.N. Charter. In 1970, the Twenty-fifth General Assembly attempted to elaborate the law of the U.N. Charter by adopting a resolution approving the "Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States."... there are two provisions relevant to economic coercion. A preambular provision recalls "the duty of states to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any state." This seems to acknowledge the existence of a duty not to use economic coercion for the purpose of destroying or dismembering a state. This is scarcely a radical rule. While the passage could imply more, its possible further implications are not widely agreed. The second reference to economic coercion in the Declaration is more impor |