1 See Richard D. Kearney and Robert E. Dalton, “The Treaty on Treaties,” 64 A.J.I.L. 495–561 (1970); Herbert W. Briggs, “The Travaux Préparatoires of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,” 65 ibid. 705–712 (1971). Cf. Robert Rosenstock, “The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations: A Survey,” ibid. 713–735, at 728, 734 (1971).

2 In a volume entitled: The International Law Standard in Treaties of the United States (1953) the present author undertook a classification of treaties according to subject matter and sought to discern purposes which specific treaty references to international law were designed to serve. In a later volume, The International Law Standard and Commonwealth Developments, Ch. 2, pp. 66–99 (1966), there was effort by the same author to discern reception of the law by Commonwealth member states through specific provisions as well as otherwise. On the possible inutility of such wording as “a general principle of law” in some contexts, see the first article cited in the preceding note, at p. 522.

3 The great increase in the number of executive agreements (as compared with treaties), has recently received considerable attention. In 1952, in the course of Senate hearings it was noted that there were in force at that time 524 treaties and 917 executive agreements. (“Treaties and Executive Agreements,” Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate on S.J. Res. 130 (proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements), May 21, 22, 27, 28, 1952.) By 1971 executive agreements had come to be more than four times the number of treaties.

In “Transmittal of Agreements to Congress,” Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session, on S. J. Res. 596, it was noted (at p. 16) that as of Jan. 1, 1969, there were in force 909 treaties to which the United States was a party, while the number of executive agreements was 3,973.

4 8 U.S.T. 329; T.I.A.S. 3780.

5 11 U.S.T. 416; T.I.A.S. 4460.

6 13 U.S.T. 1789; T.I.A.S. 5125.

7 13 U.S.T. 2418; T.I.A.S. 5205.

8 18 U.S.T. (1) 486; T.I.A.S. 6254.

9 15 U.S.T. 1479; T.I.A.S. 5626.

10 19 U.S.T. 4814; T.I.A.S. 6482. An agreement through exchange of notes on May 26, 1955, was not to include any guaranty against nor authorize any claim for confiscation carried out in accordance with international standards as a penalty imposed upon an offender “for violation of internal or international law.” (Memorandum of March 27, 1968.)

11 11 U.S.T. 406; T.I.A.S. 4459. There is reference to settlement or adjudication of claims in accordance with “recognized principles of law.”

12 8 U.S.T. 202; T.I.A.S. 3761.

13 17 U.S.T. 331; T.I.A.S. 5979. With this may be compared an agreement on the same subject between the United States and Guatemala (13 U.S.T. 2008; T.I.A.S. 5158), which sets out that such claims shall be settled or adjudicated “in accordance with recognized principles of law.” The latter would presumably include international law. There is comparable language in agreements which the United States has signed with other states on the same subject, such as the agreement with British Honduras, which came into force on Feb. 8, 1966. 17 U.S.T. 347; T.I.A.S. 5983.

14 8 U.S.T. 1869; T.I.A.S. 3932.

15 8 U.S.T. 2375; T.I.A.S. 3953. By the terms, any claim against Cuba to which the United States might be subrogated was to be the subject of negotiations between the two governments. If not settled through negotiations, such a claim was to be referred to a sole arbitrator, to be appointed by the President of the International Court of Justice if the parties could not agree upon an appointee.

16 2 U.S.T. 2418. By Art. 10 of the Charter, “Recognition implies that the State granting it accepts the personality of the new State, with all the rights and duties that international law prescribes for the two States.”

17 William Adams Brown, Jr., “Treaty Guaranty and Tax Inducements for Foreign Investment,” 40 American Economic Review 486–494, at 489 (1950). The writer observes that there is hardly a provision in a modern FCN treaty that is not of direct or indirect importance to investors. See also statement by Brunoa Foa as to the complexity of the issues which beset the problem of foreign investment. Ibid. 516–521.

18 These agreements do, however, provide for arbitration of differences as to meanings. States with which the United States has such commitments include Luxembourg, 7 U.S.T. 3432; T.I.A.S. 3715; Turkey, 8 U.S.T. 202; T.I.A.S. 3761; Cuba, 8 U.S.T. 2375; T.I.A.S. 3953 (this agreement providing for a sole arbitrator); India, 10 U.S.T. 1997; T.I.A.S. 4368; Ghana, 9 U.S.T. 1321; T.I.A.S. 4121; Nepal, 11 U.S.T. 1396; T.I.A.S. 4477; Panama, 13 U.S.T. 293; T.I.A.S. 4976 (with special rules as to claims for certain losses by reason of war); Swaziland, 21 U.S.T. (2) 2006; T.I.A.S. 6944.

19 Cf. note 12 above.

20 Note 10 above.

21 16 U.S.T. 2050; T.I.A.S. 5942, par. 6b.

22 16 U.S.T. 1807; T.I.A.S. 6327. Par. 4 of this agreement contains language comparable with that in an agreement made by the United States with Singapore, 17 U.S.T. 534; T.I.A.S. 5999. The agreement with Singapore also contained five references to international law.

23 18 U.S.T. 106; T.I.A.S. 6205.

24 Exchange of notes entering into force May 11, 1970. 21 U.S.T. (2) 1172; T.I.A.S. 6875. Par. 6(a) of the agreement with Mauritius refers to “applicable principles and rules of international law.”

25 18 U.S.T. (3) 2335; T.I.A.S. 6334. Cf. the commercial treaty of 1951 with Denmark. By its Art. 111(1), nationals of each party in the territory of the other are to receive “protection and security, in no case less than that required by international law.” 12 U.S.T. 908; T.I.A.S. 4797.

26 Cf. exchange of notes with Malawi, 18 U.S.T. 2335; T.I.A.S. 6334.

27 See treaty with Federal Republic of Germany, 7 U.S.T. 1839, 1842; T.I.A.S. 3593.

28 See, for example, interpretation of the security treaty with Japan, 8 U.S.T. 1571 (at p. 1576); T.I.A.S. 3910.

29 See exchange of notes with Egypt concerning mutual defense, 7 U.S.T. 844; T.I.A.S. 3565.

30 Illustrated in a reference to “sovereign immunity” in an agreement with Canada, 18 U.S.T. 486; T.I.A.S. 6254. In a separate paragraph there is reference to “generally accepted principles of international law.”

31 See discussion of this agreement and of comparable ones concerning the Savannah by D. C. Piper, “Special Agreements Relating to the Entry of the N.S. Savannah into Foreign Ports,” in David R. Deener, ed., De Lege Pactorum 233–245 (1970).

32 Professor Piper notes that at the time of his writing there were nuclear-powered merchant vessels under construction or under consideration in several other countries (listed, Joe. cit. 234). Included were countries with each of which the United States had concluded a bilateral agreement in the form of an exchange of notes. Also noted is the fact that in the agreement with Spain and in that with Greece the host state retains a “sovereign right” of forbidding the servicing and maintenance of the Savannah in territorial waters if this would be incompatible with public safety.

33 15 U.S.T. 2494; T.I.A.S. 5743.

34 13 U.S.T. 2314; T.I.A.S. 5200.

35 6 U.S.T. 3424; T.I.A.S. 3364.

36 6 U.S.T. 3517 (Art. 67, at p. 3560); T.I.A.S. 3365.

37 6 U.S.T. 3424 (Art. 158, at p. 3622); T.I.A.S. 3365.

38 21 U.S.T. (1) 683; T.I.A.S. 6847 (Art. 90).

39 19 U.S.T. (6) 7560 (Art. 6, par. 2, at p. 3566); T.I.A.S. 6598.

40 20 U.S.T. 2979; T.I.A.S. 6771. There was also reference in the Czechoslovak note to exemption from taxes and from social security payments. The U.S. note mentions non-requirement of U.S. income and social security taxes, without specific reference to international law.

41 15 U.S.T. 1479; T.I.A.S. 5626.

42 7 U.S.T. 3193; T.I.A.S. 3698.

43 15 U.S.T. 142; T.I.A.S. 5530. Cf. agreement with Panama concerning defense which came into force May 22, 1962. 13 U.S.T. 1294; T.I.A.S. 5081.

44 3 U.S.T. 5334, at p. 5338. (Language quoted from the text of a resolution of the Import Control Commission.)

45 20 U.S.T. (3), at p. 4123.

46 17 U.S.T. 1566; T.I.A.S. 6114, Art. II (2b).

47 13 U.S.T. 2065; T.I.A.S. 5161.

48 6 U.S.T. 434; T.I.A.S. 3178.

49 4 U.S.T. 2134, at pp. 2137, 2147; T.I.A.S. 2864.

50 Note 43.

51 The recent move in the United States Senate, in its passage without negative vote on Feb. 16, 1972, of S. 596 (toward requiring that international agreements other than treaties hereafter entered into by the United States be transmitted to the Congress within sixty days after the execution thereof) would not seem to be relatable principally to what may be done through treaties and agreements which in general terms look to the applicability of the standard which is international law. See discussion in Congressional Record, Senate, Feb. 16, 1972, on S. 596 (S 1904–S 1911). In the course of this discussion Senator Mathias said, in part (S 1910), that “. . . there are now all sorts of international agreements which are given other names than treaties; and while this may appear to be a semantic difference to the layman, it becomes a very important difference to those who are engaged in keeping track of foreign policy in the democratic process.”