* Reprinted from Command Paper 1814, with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

* Reprinted from an English translation issued by the Press and Information Service, Embassy of France, New York, N.Y. [The official French texts were published in the Journal Officiel of the French Republic on March 2 0, 1962. The following documents have been reprinted: general declaration; declarations of principles concerning economic and financial cooperation and on cooperation for the exploitation of the wealth of the Saharan subsoil. The following documents have not been reprinted: cease-fire agreement in Algeria; declaration of guarantees (relating to civil rights and personal status); declarations of principles concerning cultural cooperation, technical cooperation, and military questions; and Decree Numbers 62–305 and 62–306 (relating to the self-determination referendum and the provisional organization of public powers in Algeria.)]

* U.N. Doc. A/5170 and Corr. 1 (Annex). Reprinted from the United Nations Review, September 1962, pp. 39–43. All agreements and letters reprinted are dated August 15, 1962.

a The Republic of Haiti and the Dominican Republic shall be permitted to export 20 percent more than their respective adjusted basic quotas in the coffee year 1963–64. In no event, however, shall such increases be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the distribution of votes. In the review of the Agreement, provided for in Article 72, the two-year production cycle in those countries shall be given special consideration.

b In the first coffee year, the Republic of the Congo (Leopoldville), after presentation to the Council of acceptable evidence of an exportable production larger than 700,000 bags, shall be authorized by the Council to export up to 900,000 bags. In the second and third coffee years it is permitted to increase its coffee exports by an amount not to exceed 20 percent over those for the previous year. After presentation to the Council of acceptable evidence of an exportable production larger than 340,000 bags, Rwanda and Burundi may be authorized by the Council to export a combined total of up to 450,000 bags in the first coffee year, 500,000 bags in the second coffee year and 565,000 bags in the third coffee year. In no event, however, shall the increases allowed those countries in the first three years be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the distribution of votes.

a Less than 22,000 bags.

1 See the case of Harris & Company Advertising, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 127 So. 2d 687 (Fla.), where the Cuban Government itself pleaded sovereign immunity and the State Department refused to recognize and allow the plea in that case.

* [not reprinted here]

1 The full text of the district court’s order is as follows:

ORDER

This Court having filed its memorandum opinion in the above cases on August 29, 1961, and having ruled therein that 50 U.S.C. Sec. 191 is inapplicable, but that nevertheless as a result of the suggestion of immunity filed at the direction of the Attorney General, at the request of the Department of State, which recognized and allowed claim of sovereign immunity asserted by the Republic of Cuba with respect to the BAHIA DE NIPE and her cargo, said vessel and her cargo are immune from seizure by process for arrest, attachment, detention and execution, and must therefore be allowed to sail at once.

It is hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the BAHIA DE NIPE and her cargo are declared immune from process, arrest, attachment, detention and execution, as property belonging to the Republic of Cuba, and

It is further hereby Ordered, Adjudged and DECREED that the vessel with her cargo is free to sail at once; that all prior orders entered by this Court for the purpose of detaining said vessel and cargo are dissolved; and that the Order to Show Cause entered on August 18, 1961, is discharged; however,

It is further hereby Ordered, that as the matter will be heard by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Tuesday, September 5, 1961, the Order shall be stayed pending action by the Court of Appeals and in the interim period the BAHIA DE NIPE and her cargo shall remain within the jurisdiction of this Court unless otherwise ordered by the Appellate Court.

2 “Every judicial action exercising or relinquishing jurisdiction over the vessel of a foreign government has its effect upon our relations with that government.” Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U.S. 30, at 35.

3 Moreover, we do not agree that the BAHIA DE NIPE was not in the possession of the Cuban Government; it was being operated for that government by one of its arms.

4 The certiorari petition appended to the stay application asserts a conflict between the ruling of the Fourth Circuit below and the decision of the Second Circuit, in 1941, in The Katingo Hadjipatera, 119 F. 2d 1022, affirming on the opinion below, 40 F. Supp. 546 (S.D. N.Y.). There is no conflict. First, the Katingo case was decided before Ex parte Peru and Mexico v. Hoffman were decided by this Court, and any intimations contrary to the principles of those opinions have been overruled. Second, in Katingo the vessel was in the United States at the time the foreign government issued its requisition order, and it appeared that that government had never taken possession of the vessel; the status of property outside the sovereign’s territorial jurisdiction when an attempt at seizure is made is quite different from property which is taken over by the foreign sovereign within its own territory. Third, our government’s suggestion to the district court appears, so far as we can tell, to have been more limited than the suggestion of immunity in the present

1 “ * * * The clear weight of authority in this country, as well as that of England and Continental Europe, is against all seizures, even though a valid judgment has been entered. To so hold is not depriving our own courts of any attribute of jurisdiction. It is but recognizing the general international understanding, recognized by civilized nations, that a sovereign’s person and property ought to be held free from seizure or molestation at all peaceful times and under all circumstances. Nor is this in derogation of the dignity owed to our courts.”

2 “Of course, the sovereign can consent that any judicial question can be determined by any court. But such consent is entirely voluntary, and it may withdraw its consent at any time.”

* [not reprinted here]

1 The first application, in the Rich case, was filed on Saturday, September 9, 1961, and denied on Monday, September 11, 1961. The second application, in the Mayan Lines case, was filed on Monday and denied the following day. Both of those cases, together with the present United Fruit case, were consolidated and disposed of in a single order in the district court and in the same opinion in the court of appeals.

* [Pages 280–291 of International Legal Materials]

2 The dissenting opinion in the case objected only to applying the act of state doctrine to defeat a counterclaim against the foreign sovereign where the foreign sovereign had deliberately invoked the jurisdiction of our courts. Cf. National City Bank v. Republic of China, 348 U.S. 356. The present claim against the cargo does not, of course, arise in any counterclaim situation and the considerations underlying the dissenting opinion as well as the Republic of China case thus have no application here.

* Reprinted from a translation prepared by the American Chamber of Commerce for Brazil. [This legislation was promulgated by the President of the Senate on September 4, 1962, President Goulart having allowed it to become law without his signature. It became effective upon publication in the Diario Oficial of Brazil on September 27. A bill designed to amend this law was approved by the Senate on August 23 and is now before the Chamber. If the legislation reprinted here is amended, the amended act will be carried in a later number of International Legal Materials.]

* This unofficial translation is reprinted from the Supplement to Bulletin of the European Economic Community, No. 5, 1962.

* Reprinted from a translation prepared by the American Embassy in Mexico City. [The amendments, proposed by the President, have been approved by both houses of Congress and ratified by the required number of states. They will come into effect upon signature by the President and publication in the Gaceta del Gobierno. As of October 8, 1962, they had not come into effect.]

* Section 107 of H.R. 13175 [an act making appropriations for foreign aid and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 3 0, 1963, and for other purposes], 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962), as it was cleared by the Senate and House of Representatives for the President’s signature.

* Reprinted from U.N. Doc. A/5181, 27 September 1962. Only the recommendations of the Committee and the statement of the Legal Sub-Committee (pp. 7–14) have been reproduced.

* See International Legal Materials, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 97–105, where these proposals are reprinted.