¹ Including also Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.

² Including also Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and West Germany. (Greece, Iceland, and Ireland, also members of OEEC, eventually dropped out of the ENEA program.)

³ The final agreement, which emerged in March 1957, established the machinery of EURATOM, including an Assembly, a Court of Justice, a Social and Economic Committee, a Council of Ministers (with the same representation as the Council of the Economic Community) that would have final authority except for appeals to the Court, a Commission (five members of different nationality, decision by majority vote), and a Scientific and Technical Committee, consisting of twenty members appointed by the Council for five-year terms. The agreement stipulated that the budget for research and development would be shared, with France and West Germany paying 30 per cent, Italy 23 per cent, and the balance divided equally among the three smaller states.

⁴ U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Twenty-third Semiannual Report (Washington 1958), 198.Google Scholar

⁵ Sir Thomson, George, “Britain's Drive for Atomic Power,” Foreign Affairs, XXXV (October 1956), 103.Google Scholar

⁶ North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO Letter, August 1, 1956, 26.Google Scholar

⁷ ibid., September-October 1956, 53.

⁸ ibid., 36.

⁹ “Report of Messrs. Armand, Etzel, and Giordani,” May 4, 1957, reprinted in full in JCAE Hearings, Proposed EURATOM Agreements, 85th Congress, 2nd Session, July 1958, 1, 47.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See the extensive analysis of these issues in The Times (London), February 23, 1957, 6.

¹¹ The disclosure by the German federal government's Bulletin, made under the heading “Exchange of Information,” included the following: “Knowledge, whether patented or not, that has been gathered by the Community or which has been acquired from third parties, will be available to all the interested members of the Community within the territory of the Community. The exchange also comprises such knowledge which for reasons of the individual states is subject to secret regulations.” (Cited in NATO Letter, April 1957, 22.)

¹² The Times (London), February 23, 1957, 6.

¹³ AEC Commissioner Thomas E. Murray told the JCAE: “… as a result of the policies we have pursued, the state of our reactor industry permits us to render but limited assistance to EURATOM. … We certainly could have been better prepared. …” (JCAE Hearings, On the Development, Growth, and State of the Atomic Energy Industry, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, 1957, 60.)Google Scholar

¹⁴ Thomson, 102–3.

¹⁵ NATO Letter, December 1956, 21. Nations involved in the Eurochemic plan were Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and West Germany, assisted by Britain and the United States, which remained outside.

¹⁶ AEC, Twenty-fourth Semiannual Report, 1958, 26.Google Scholar

¹⁷ NATO Letter, November 1957, 7.

¹⁸ Excerpts from the transcript of a press conference held on November 19, 1957, in ibid., December 1957, 15.

¹⁹ New York Times, December 11, 1957, 1.

²⁰ The Times (London), November 21, 1957, 10.

²¹ See statement of Deputy Under Secretary of State Murphy, Robert, JCAE Hearings, To Amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 85th Congress, 2nd Session, 1958, 93.Google Scholar

²² Statement of Selkirk, Lord, First Lord of the British Admiralty, NATO Letter, November 1957, 14.Google Scholar

²³ JCAE Hearings, Amending the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 85th Congress, 2nd Session, 1958, 448, 463.Google Scholar

²⁴ Duncan Sandys, British Defense Minister, emphasized to the Commons that they would not be launched “except by a joint positive decision” by both governments. (The Times [London], February 25, 1958, 8.)

²⁵ Quoted in New York Times, February 8, 1958, 2.

²⁶ See attachment B to Appendix C, Proposed EURATOM Agreements, 21.

²⁷ The Times (London), April 18, 1958, 12.

²⁸ See “A Brief History of Safeguards,” JCAE, Review of International Atomic Policies and Programs of the United States, 86th Congress, 2nd Session, 1960, III, 850.Google Scholar

²⁹ Hirsch, Etienne, “A Guide to EURATOM,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, XV (June 1959), 265.Google Scholar

³⁰ For full text of the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and EURATOM, see Appendix 15, AEC, Twenty-fourth Semiannual Report, 1958, 398–404.Google Scholar

³¹ Proposed EURATOM Agreements, 23.

³² ibid., 442.

³³ Letter from Herter to Durham, August 12, 1958, text in ibid., 514.

³⁴ Review of International Atomic Policies, 1960, 1, 13.

³⁵ “The Outlook for the U.S. Atomic Energy Program,” reprinted in Appendix III, JCAE Hearings, Development, Growth, and State of the Atomic Energy Industry, 86th Congress, 2nd Session, 1959, 543.Google Scholar

³⁶ JCAE Hearings, AEC Authorizing Legislation, 86th Congress, 2nd Session, 1959, 673–74.Google Scholar

³⁷ Letter dated May 11, 1959, printed in ibid., 682.

³⁸ ibid., 87th Congress, 2nd Session, 1961, 179.

³⁹ JCAE Hearings, Development, Growth, and State of the Atomic Energy Industry, 87th Congress, 1st Session, 1960, 50.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See statement of Wells, A. A., JCAE Hearings, International Agreements for Cooperation, 88th Congress, 1st Session, 1962, 29.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Review of International Atomic Policies, 1960, 1, 62.

⁴² European Atomic Energy Community, Third General Report (Brussels 1960), 7–8.Google Scholar

⁴³ German Federal Government, The Bulletin, October 4, 1956, 1.Google Scholar