The current administration has announced that one of the foreign policy objectives of the United States is to improve relations with developing countries by being more responsive to their concerns. The former administration was also moving in the same direction, as demonstrated by the Kissinger proposals to the seventh special session of the United Nations in 1975 and by U.S. agreement to the extensive plan of action called for by a final omnibus resolution of the United Nations Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Nairobi in May 1976.

At the Diplomatic Conference on Humanitarian Law held in Geneva from 1974 to 1977, it was pointed out that eighty percent of the victims of armed conflict since World War II have been created in noninternational armed conflict. Whatever the precision of this estimate, as of the mid-1970’s a number of important actors in world affairs were concerned about destruction of human values in internal war and sought restraints on that form of violence. This concern produced, as of June 10, 1977, a Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 relating to the protection of victims of noninternational armed conflict.

On July 1, 1957, the United States and Pakistan signed a Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income. Although, at that time, it was one of the few double taxation treaties that the United States had entered into with a developing country, it followed, for the most part, the template established by earlier tax treaties negotiated with the more developed nations. A major distinguishing factor, however, was the inclusion of a tax-sparing credit provision, by means of which the coverage of the foreign tax credit accorded U.S. taxpayers for certain foreign taxes paid or deemed to have been paid was extended to certain taxes that were ordinarily levied by Pakistan but which had been “spared” as part of the latter’s incentive program for the stimulation of economic development. Three other treaties—with India, Israel, and the United Arab Republic—presented to the Senate for ratification at approximately the same time also contained tax-sparing provisions. However, none of these tax-sparing provisions was ever put into effect. The Convention with Pakistan was approved with a reservation excluding the sparing provisions, on the basis that the Pakistani tax concession which was to be credited for “phantom” taxes deemed paid had expired. The other three treaties never received the assent of the Senate and were subsequently withdrawn from the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1964. No other tax-sparing provisions have been negotiated by the United States, although other tax incentive schemes have been presented to the Senate. These, too, have failed to be approved. The failure to agree to any such provision utilizing tax incentives as a form of development assistance is often deemed to be the major reason for the notable dearth of tax conventions between the United States and the developing states, as the latter are particularly interested in the inclusion of tax-sparing credit provisions in the double taxation treaties that they agree to sign. This failure is, in turn, rooted in the severe and at times persuasive criticism levied against the principle of granting tax-sparing credits—especially in the form in which they were to be granted in the four aforementioned treaties—and in the consequent hostility of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, as perceived by those responsible for negotiating U.S. tax treaties, toward provisions of this sort.

The entry of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) into the world community has renewed an old question in a new global setting: Is China a help or a hindrance to international law and order? What impact, if any, has China made upon the evolution of the Charter-based international legal order? Conversely, what impact, if any, has the international legal order had on the Chinese conception and practice of international law? China’s participation for over six years in the activities of the United Nations, the specialized agencies, and UN-sponsored conferences, many of which are engaged in the development and clarification of law, now makes it possible to subject the above questions to a disciplined behavioral analysis.

The material in this section is arranged according to the system employed in the annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, published by the Department of State.

Complainant, a woman who had been deputy head of a school art department since 1971, had applied for the post of head of the department in 1975; however, the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) appointed a man to the position. She then filed a complaint with the Industrial Tribunal in London, charging the ILEA with sex discrimination in violation of Sections 6(1)(c) and 2(a) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Article 119 of the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community (EEC Treaty), and Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972. She also contended that her rights were protected by the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women of 1967, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950. The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction over the case. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction and also held that Article 119 of the EEC Treaty did not confer a right upon complainant which could be enforced by an industrial tribunal.