Page images
PDF
EPUB

ment of boycott participation; definition of "clearly separate and identifiable operations"; effective date provisions; the international boycott factor; confidentiality of determinations; definition of an agreement to participate in or cooperate with a boycott; refraining from doing business with or in a boycotted country; refraining from doing business with any U.S. person engaged in trade in a boycotted country; refraining from doing business with any company whose ownership or management is made up, in whole or in part, of individuals of a particular nationality, race, or religion; refraining from employing individuals of a particular nationality, race, or religion; and, as a condition of the sale of a product, refraining from shipping or insuring that product on a carrier, owned, leased, or operated by a person who does not participate in or cooperate with an international boycott. Fed. Reg., Vol. 41, No. 219, Nov. 11, 1976, pp. 49923-49933.

On October 7, 1976, President Ford issued a directive to the Secretary of Commerce calling for disclosure of boycott-related reports filed in the future, to permit public assessment of the impact of the Arab boycott on American business. The text of the Presidential Directive follows:

Would you please assure that the Department of Commerce takes steps to permit the public inspection and copying of boycott-related reports to be filed in the future with the Department of Commerce. Only business proprietary information regarding such things as quantity and type of goods exported, the release of which could place reporting firms at a competitive disadvantage, should not be made available to the public.

During the past year, there has been a growing interest in and awareness of the impact of the Arab Boycott on American business. Disclosure of boycott-related reports will enable the American public to assess for itself the nature and impact of the Arab Boycott and to monitor the conduct of American companies.

I have concluded that this public disclosure will strengthen existing policy against the Arab Boycott of Israel without jeopardizing our vital interests in the Middle East. The action I am directing today should serve as a reaffirmation of our national policy of opposition to boycott actions against nations friendly to us. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 12, No. 41, Oct. 11, 1976, pp. 1460-1461.

The Office of Export Administration of the Department of Commerce announced on the following day that, pursuant to the directive and effective October 7, 1976, it would commence public disclosure of reports regarding boycott-related requests received by American companies on or after October 7, 1976. It announced the addition of a new § 369.4(c) to the Export Administration Regulations (15 Code of Federal Regulations 369.4) for that purpose.

Fed. Reg., Vol. 41, No. 1999, Oct. 13, 1976, pp. 44861-44862.

The Department of Commerce announced on November 18, 1976, that it was proposing to amend its reporting procedures (15 CFR 369) with regard to the Arab boycott, in ways which would clarify the

public record of U.S. firms' responses to the boycott. The proposed rules would

(1) amend the wording of the regulation requiring a report on any intended compliance with a boycott-related request, by substituting language from the policy statement of the Export Administration Act (83 Stat. 841; 50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.);

(2) amend the reporting form to provide for attaching any additional statement to explain the nature of a response to a boycott-related request; and

(3) clarify that requests for affirmative certificates of origin, absent evidence to the contrary, are not considered boycott-related requests.

Public comment was requested no later than Dec. 17, 1976. Dept. of Commerce News G76-235, Nov. 18, 1976; Fed. Reg., Vol. 41, No. 226, Nov. 22, 1976, pp. 51424-51425.

Chapter 11

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH

AFFAIRS

§ 1 Environmental Affairs

Regional Cooperation

On May 12, 1976, the United States requested the inclusion on the agenda of the Sixth General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) of an item on the examination of cooperative activities in the field of nature conservation, as prescribed by the 1940 Convention on Nature Protection and the Preservation of Wildlife in the Western Hemisphere (TS 981; 56 Stat. 1354). The request was accompanied by a letter from Curtis Bohlen, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, dated May 7, 1976, which states:

This Convention was for a long time regarded as hortatory, and did not receive serious and active attention. However, it anticipated much of the thinking and the language contained in Pater more specific international treaties like the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species, to which it closely relates. In recent years, its relevance has become more widely recognized and its implementation was eventually ordered by the Congress in Article 7 (Sec. 1537, 16 USC) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. On April 13, 1976, the President signed Executive Order 11911, entitled "Preservation of Endangered Species", which among other things authorized the Secretary of the Interior to act on behalf of the United States in implementing the Convention.

Therefore, on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, I would like to ask your assistance in presenting to the countries of the Western Hemisphere, through the Organization of American States, a proposal to enter into a program of cooperative activities in the field of nature conservation, as prescribed by this Convention. These activities should include, inter alia, the exchange of information and technology, joint scientific research, the identification and study of species of flora and fauna, the study and conservation of migratory birds, endangered species, and ecosystems, and the planning and management of parks, preserves, and natural monuments.

[blocks in formation]

OAS Doc. OEA/Ser. P, AG/doc. 659/76, May 19, 1976. The OAS General Assembly, on June 16, 1976, adopted Res. 218 (VI-0/76), which contains the following operative paragraphs:

[blocks in formation]

1. To urge the implementation of the Convention [on Nature Protection and the Preservation of Wildlife in the Western Hemisphere] by the member states through mutual cooperation in activities such as scientific research and technical cooperation and assistance relating to wild flora and fauna, the creation, planning, and training in the management of parks and reserves, the adoption of measures to conserve wild flora and fauna and to protect species which are in danger of extinction.

2. To adopt measures to facilitate the discharge of specific responsibilities of the member states and of the OAS Secretariat under the terms of the Convention in furnishing and processing lists of endangered and threatened species and in disseminating information relating to nature protection and the conservation of wild flora and fauna.

3. To instruct the Permanent Executive Committee of the Inter-American Council for Education, Science, and Culture to prepare a report and submit it to the next regular meeting of CIECC, examining the advisability of convoking a conference to discuss, plan, and agree upon cooperative bilateral and multilateral activities such as those called for above.

4. To accept the offer of the United States to host this conference.

5. To urge all sovereign states of the Western Hemisphere to adhere to the Convention if they have not already done so.

Environmental Impact

On September 24, 1976, Russell W. Peterson, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) of the Executive Office of the President, issued a letter and memorandum to heads of U.S. agencies on applying the environmental impact statement (EIS) requirement to environmental impacts abroad. The Council thus interpreted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to include impact statements for Federal actions which have a significant impact on the environment, whether in the United States, in other countries in which the activity is carried out or has an effect, or in areas, such as the high seas and the atmosphere, outside the jurisdiction of any country. Chairman Peterson's letter states that the NEPA requirement for such analysis and disclosure can be accomplished "without imposing U.S. environmental standards on other countries, and without interfering with the execution of foreign policy."

The memorandum accompanying Chairman Peterson's letter is set out below:

MEMORANDUM ON THE APPLICATION OF THE EIS REQUIREMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ABROAD OF MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIONS

NEPA requires analysis of significant environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions on the quality of the human environment. The "human environment" is not limited to the United States, but includes other countries and areas outside the jurisdiction of any country (e.g., the high seas, the atmosphere). The Act contains no express or implied geographic limitation of environmental impacts to the United States or to any other area. Indeed, such a limitation would be

inconsistent with the plain language of NEPA, its legislative purpose, the Council's Guidelines, and judicial precedents.

In a statute which in other sections refers specifically to the national environment.1 use of the term human environment in § 102(2) (C) reflects an intent to cover environmental impacts beyond U.S. borders. This interpretation is consistent with NEPA's stated purpose, declared in the preamble to the Act, to "encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man." It is also consistent with Congress' recognition in section 101 of "the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment . . . and . . . the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man." Applying the EIS requirement to impacts abroad also implements the mandate in section 102 to all agencies to "recognize the worldwide and long range character of environmental problems." In sum, the broad language of section 102(2) (C) as well as the explicit congressional determination that our national environmental policy must have a global perspective gives section 102(2) (C) a wide scope.

The legislative history of NEPA supports the inclusion of impacts globally and in other countries within the scope of the EIS requirement. A 1968 "Congressional White Paper on a National Policy for the Environment," summarizing the joint House-Senate colloquium on national environmental policy that led to NEPA's introduction, and inserted into the record by Senator [Henry M.] Jackson during debate, stated, "[a]lthough the influence of the U.S. policy will be limited outside its own borders, the global character of ecological relationships must be the guide for domestic activities." Both the House and the Senate reports on NEPA, reflecting the testimony of numerous witnesses at the hearings, recognized the statute's global perspective.3 Statements to the same effect were made during the floor debates, including an explanation by Senator Jackson of NEPA's statement of environmental policy:

What is involved [in NEPA] is a congressional declaration that we do not intend, as a government or as a people, to initiate actions which endanger the continued existence or the health of mankind: That we will not intentionally initiate action which will do irreparable damage to the air, land and water which support life on Earth.1

The House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee during oversight hearings specifically rejected the argument that NEPA should not be applied to actions occurring within the jurisdiction of another nation:

Stated most charitably, the committee disagrees with this interpretation of NEPA. The history of the act makes it quite clear that the global effects of environmental decisions are inevitably a part of the decisionmaking process and must be considered in that context.5

The Council has consistently applied NEPA to U.S. international activities and has urged Federal agencies to recognize the Act's global perspective. In its first Annual Report, for example, the Council pointed out that NEPA “directed all agencies of the Federal Government to recognize the worldwide and long range character of environmental problems." In 1971 the Council's Legal Advisory Committee specifically urged Federal agencies to apply NEPA to their actions in foreign countries.' The Council's 1973 Guidelines require the assessment of "both the national and international environment." The Fifth Annual Report reviewed agencies' experience in applying the EIS process to U.S. actions abroad. In 1976 the Council reported on one of the benefits of this experience-the growth of environmental impact assessment procedures in other countries.10

« PreviousContinue »