U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36–603 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–623 

TREATIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 13, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

http://www.govinfo.gov 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Chairman

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD, YOUNG, Indiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

TODD WOMACK, Staff Director

JESSICA LEWIS, Democratic Staff Director

JOHN DUTTON, Chief Clerk

(II)

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator from Idaho ................................................... 1 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire ................................ 2 

Visek, Richard, Acting Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Swartz, Bruce, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC ........................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to Richard Visek 

by Senator Tim Kaine .......................................................................................... 23 

Correspondence in Support of the Treaties ........................................................... 25 

(III)

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(1) 

TREATIES 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in Room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James E. Risch presiding. 

Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Shaheen, and Kaine. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator RISCH. The committee will come to order. 

And thank you so much, all of you who are attending today. We 

are going to hear today from the State Department and the Department of Justice regarding five treaties that are pending before this 

committee. 

First of all, we have two extradition treaties with Serbia and 

Kosovo. These treaties update a century-old treaty with what was 

then the Kingdom of Serbia. While this earlier treaty continues to 

govern our extradition law with Serbia and Kosovo, it does not include the modern extradition principles the United States has relied on and included in its extradition treaties in recent years. 

For example, both treaties will be updated from so-called list 

treaties, whereby an offender may only be extradited under a specific list of crimes to dual criminality treaties. Dual criminality allows for extradition for offenses that are crimes in both countries. 

Another important improvement is that both of these treaties 

will now allow for the extradition of nationals. Since 1990, the U.S. 

has supported the policy of allowing the extradition of nationals, a 

policy we have pursued with other nations in our recent extradition 

treaties. 

Both these modern principles, dual criminality and the extradition of nationals, were included in last year’s extradition treaties 

with the Dominican Republic and Chile, two treaties approved 

unanimously by the Senate. 

As Mr. Swartz will discuss, these updated treaties will improve 

the ability of our Department of Justice in fighting terrorism and 

transnational crime. 

Next, we have two treaties, which, if ratified, would establish 

maritime boundaries between the Republic of Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia and the United States. These treaties 

would formalize boundaries that have been informally adhered to 

by the parties. Because of improved methods of calculation, the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

2 

State Department expects the treaties will create a small net gain 

of continental shelf jurisdiction and exclusive economic zone for the 

United States. 

Finally, we have the U.N. Convention on the Assignment of Receivables. This treaty was negotiated with significant U.S. assistance. As our witness Mr. Visek will note, the treaty substantially 

reflects U.S. law and is strongly supported by the U.S. business 

community. 

In a letter to this committee, the Chamber of Commerce has 

noted that the convention, if ratified, will make it easier for U.S. 

small—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Business. [Laughter.] 

Senator RISCH [continuing]. Small business, which we are the 

chairman and ranking member of, to access additional financing. 

For example, if ratified, the convention would provide these businesses with more certainty. They would be able to secure lending 

based on their sales of goods and services to customers located in 

other countries that ratify the convention. 

Both the ranking member and I are always focused on things 

that are helpful to small businesses. 

The convention’s rules will thus facilitate access to asset-based financing in which their foreign receivables serve as collateral. 

In February, President Trump signed an executive order on the 

core principles for regulating the U.S. financial system, establishing principles that will enable American companies to be competitive with foreign forms in domestic and foreign markets, and 

advance American interests in international financial regulatory 

negotiations and meetings. By agreeing to this treaty, we will be 

able to accomplish both of those goals. 

The Senate plays a unique constitutional role in providing advice 

and consent on treaties. This hearing is part of that constitutional 

responsibility, and we always undertake our constitutional responsibilities soberly. 

So with that, gentlemen, do we have a volunteer to go first? That 

would be you, Mr. Visek. 

I am very sorry. I yield to the ranking member. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to our witnesses for being here today. 

I am pleased that the committee is considering these five treaties 

before us. As was noted by Avril Haines at a hearing last week, 

deliberations before this committee relative to treaties have 

reached historic lows. And I think that most of my colleagues on 

the committee, both Republican and Democrat, are eager to reverse 

this trend and help enhance U.S. leadership in the world. 

The treaties we are deliberating today touch on a range of matters, from international business to maritime boundaries and the 

rule of law, as the chairman has said. They not only further United 

States’ interests, but they raise standards across the globe. In this 

increasingly complex, interconnected world, we need the consistency and uniformity that treaties provide now more than ever. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

3 

If the Senate provides its advice and consent, the treaties that 

we are considering today will raise living standards and improve 

local economies and markets worldwide and in the United States. 

And as Chairman Risch has said, he and I serve as chair and 

ranking member of the Small Business Committee, so it is nice to 

promote anything that is going to help small businesses in the 

United States. 

The two extradition treaties that are before us also merit special 

attention because they are a testament to the advancement of the 

rule of law in our transatlantic community. And 20 years after the 

devastating war in the Balkans and over a century after the first 

treaty between the United States and what was then the Kingdom 

of Serbia, the United States, Kosovo, and Serbia are finally establishing a reliable, modern, legal framework to help prosecute 

crimes and bring criminals to justice. 

And finally, in a world where border disputes continue to lead to 

bloodshed and war, the maritime border treaties with Micronesia 

and Kiribati demonstrate the power of diplomacy and dialogue. 

Now, while I continue to worry that recent threats and actions 

to withdraw the U.S. from international agreements will cause 

long-term damage to U.S. credibility and posture, I am encouraged 

by this committee’s consideration of these important treaties today, 

and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and participating 

in more treaty hearings to come. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

We will turn to our panel of witnesses. First, Mr. Richard Visek, 

who is the acting legal adviser at the State Department. 

Mr. Visek? 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD VISEK, ACTING LEGAL ADVISER, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. VISEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ranking 

Member Shaheen. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to testify in support of five treaties being 

considered by the committee. Before proceeding with brief remarks, 

I would note that I did prepare a more detailed statement, and I 

would ask that that be submitted. 

Senator RISCH. That will be included in the record, Mr. Visek. 

Mr. VISEK. Thank you. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much for doing that. 

Mr. VISEK. The five treaties before the committee are the extradition treaties with Kosovo and Serbia, the maritime boundary delimitation treaties with Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia, and the United Nations Convention on the Assignment of 

Receivables in International Trade. 

The administration appreciates the committee’s prioritization of 

these treaties. Individually and collectively, these treaties advance 

U.S. interests. 

The extradition treaties will enhance our ability to combat transborder criminal activity. The maritime boundary treaties will improve our ability to explore, benefit from, conserve, and manage the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

4 

natural resources of our maritime areas. And the receivables convention will help U.S. businesses gain access to capital. 

The administration supports each of these treaties and urges the 

Senate to provide its advice and consent to their ratification. 

Let me say a few words about each of these treaties, and then 

I will be pleased to respond to the committee’s questions. 

The two extradition treaties pending before the committee will 

update our existing treaty relationships with two law enforcement 

partners, Kosovo and Serbia. The continuing growth in transborder 

criminal activity underscores the need for increased international 

law enforcement cooperation. Extradition treaties are essential 

tools in that effort. 

The U.S. extradition relationships with Kosovo and Serbia are 

currently covered by a 1901 treaty between the United States and 

the Kingdom of Serbia. The two treaties now before the committee 

would establish modern extradition relationships with both countries, allowing us to engage in closer and more effective law enforcement cooperation. 

For example, as the chairman noted, the proposed treaties adopt 

a dual criminality approach contained in our other modern treaties. 

This allows extradition for offenses punishable in both states by 

imprisonment or deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or 

more. 

The treaties also contemplate the unrestricted extradition by 

each treaty party of its own nationals by providing that nationality 

is not a basis for denying extradition. Given that Kosovo and Serbia permit extradition of their nationals only pursuant to a treaty 

or international agreement, this will allow for each state to extradite its nationals to the United States. My colleague Bruce Swartz 

from the Department of Justice will address these treaties in further detail. 

The maritime boundary treaties with Kiribati and the Federated 

States of Micronesia delimit the exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, 

and continental shelf between the United States and these countries. Delimited boundaries provide legal certainty that enhances 

our ability to explore, benefit from, conserve, and manage the natural resources of our maritime areas, including with respect to our 

fisheries. 

The treaties provide for the delimitation of the boundaries on the 

basis of equidistance. With appropriate technical adjustments, each 

treaty formalizes boundaries that have been informally adhered to 

by the parties and that are very similar to the existing limit lines 

of the EEZ asserted by the United States for decades. 

Because of improved calculation methodologies and minor coastline changes, the four new maritime boundaries in these two treaties will result in a small net gain, primarily with respect to 

Kiribati boundaries, of the United States’ EEZ and continental 

shelf area, relative to the existing limit lines of our EEZ. 

The form and content of the two maritime boundary treaties are 

very similar to each other and to previous maritime boundary treaties between the United States and other Pacific island countries 

that have entered into force after receiving the Senate’s advice and 

consent. The treaties clarify the geographic scope of our sovereign 

rights and jurisdiction, and they reinforce other countries’ recogniFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

5 

tion of the U.S. EEZ and continental shelf entitlements around the 

U.S. islands in question. 

The Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade establishes uniform international rules governing a 

form of financing widely used in the United States involving the 

assignment of receivables. Expanded access to receivables financing 

in international trade, which the convention would promote, will 

provide American businesses an additional source of capital at no 

cost to the U.S. taxpayer and require no material change to existing U.S laws. This should particularly benefit small- and mediumsized businesses that use receivables financing. 

The convention, which is largely based on U.S. law, provides 

modern, uniform rules for transactions in which businesses either 

sell their rights to payments from their customers to a bank or 

other financial institution or use their rights to these payments as 

collateral for a loan from a lender. Such transactions enable businesses to obtain greater access to capital and credit at lower cost. 

The negotiation of the convention was supported by the U.S. Uniform Law Commission and members of the American Law Institute, which developed the applicable provisions of the U.S. Uniform 

Commercial Code that govern receivables financing in each State 

in the United States. Members of both organizations participated 

in the U.S. delegation as the convention was being negotiated. 

In addition, a committee of experts, with participation by both 

organizations, recommended understandings and declarations to 

accompany U.S. ratification of the convention, aimed at ensuring 

consistency with practice under U.S. law and facilitating application of the convention in the United States. The executive branch’s 

proposed set of understandings and declarations is consistent with 

these recommendations. 

The convention enjoys wide support in the U.S. business community. Leading U.S. business associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have urged U.S. ratification of the convention. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of these treaties. I would be happy to respond the committee’s questions about 

them. 

Thank you. 

[Mr. Visek’s prepared statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD VISEK

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you 

today to testify in support of five treaties being considered by the committee: 

• extradition treaties with Kosovo and Serbia, 

• maritime boundary delimitation treaties with Kiribati and the Federated States 

of Micronesia, and 

• the United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade. 

The administration appreciates the committee’s prioritization of these treaties. Individually and collectively, these treaties advance U.S. interests. The extradition 

treaties will enhance our ability to combat transborder criminal activity. The maritime boundary treaties will improve our ability to explore, benefit from, conserve, 

and manage the natural resources of our maritime areas. And the Receivables Convention will help U.S. businesses gain access to capital. The administration supports 

each of these treaties, and urges the Senate to provide its advice and consent to 

their ratification. During the remainder of my testimony, I will discuss the five treaties in additional detail. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

6 

EXTRADITION TREATIES WITH KOSOVO AND SERBIA

The two extradition treaties pending before the committee will update our existing treaty relationships with two important law enforcement partners—Kosovo and 

Serbia. The continuing growth in transborder crime, including terrorism, other 

forms of violent crime, drug trafficking, cybercrime, and the laundering of the proceeds of criminal activity, underscores the need for increased international law enforcement cooperation. Extradition treaties are essential tools in that effort. 

The U.S. extradition relationships with Kosovo and Serbia are currently governed 

by the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Servia for 

the Mutual Extradition of Fugitives from Justice, signed on October 25, 1901 (‘‘the 

1901 Treaty’’). We have found that this treaty is not as effective as the modern treaties we have in force with other countries in ensuring that fugitives may be brought 

to justice. The two treaties now before the committee would establish modern extradition relationships with both countries, thereby allowing us to engage in closer and 

more effective law enforcement cooperation. 

Replacing outdated extradition treaties with modern ones (as well as negotiating 

extradition treaties with new partners where appropriate) is necessary to create a 

seamless web of mutual obligations to facilitate the prompt location, arrest and extradition of international fugitives. As a result, these treaties are an important part 

of the administration’s efforts to ensure that those who commit crimes against 

American victims will face justice in the United States. 

Both new treaties contain several important provisions that will substantially 

serve our law enforcement objectives: 

First, these treaties define extraditable offenses to include conduct that is punishable by imprisonment or deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more in 

both states. This is the so-called ‘‘dual criminality’’ approach. Our older treaties, including the 1901 Treaty, provide for extradition only for offenses appearing on a list 

contained in the instrument. The problem with this approach is that, as time 

passes, the lists grow increasingly out of date. The dual criminality approach eliminates the need to renegotiate treaties to cover new offenses in instances in which 

both states pass laws to address new types of criminal activity. By way of illustration, so called ‘‘list Treaties’’ from the beginning of the 20th century do not cover 

various forms of cybercrime or money laundering. The new treaties with Kosovo and 

Serbia would fix this problem. 

Second, these treaties address one of the most difficult and important issues in 

our extradition treaty negotiations—the extradition of nationals. As a matter of 

long-standing policy, the U.S. Government extradites United States nationals and 

strongly encourages other countries to extradite their nationals. Both of the treaties 

before the committee contemplate the unrestricted extradition of nationals by providing that nationality is not a basis for denying extradition. This provision is particularly important in the context of Kosovo and Serbia because of certain provisions 

in their domestic law. Kosovo’s Supreme Court has ruled that its new constitution 

only permits the extradition of Kosovo nationals where required by international 

agreement. Kosovo has been clear that this provision in the treaty will overcome 

that obstacle, allowing them to extradite their nationals to the United States. Similarly, Serbia has domestic legislation that also permits extradition of nationals only 

pursuant to an obligation of a treaty to which Serbia is a party. Similarly, they have 

been clear that the provision on extradition of nationals in the new treaty overcomes 

this obstacle. 

Third, the treaties include a modern ‘‘political offense’’ exception that states that 

extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is 

a political offense, but establishes a number of categories of offenses that shall not 

be considered political offenses. These categories of offenses cover a range of violent 

crimes, including murder, kidnapping and hostage taking, and the use of various 

kinds of explosive devices. These categories of offenses, which did not exist in earlier 

extradition treaties, constitute exceptions to the political offense exception and align 

with a major longstanding priority of the United States to ensure that an overbroad 

definition of ‘‘political offense’’ does not impede the extradition of terrorists. 

Fourth, unlike the 1901 Treaty, these new treaties contain a provision that permits the temporary surrender of a fugitive to the Requesting State when that person is facing prosecution for, or serving a sentence on, charges within the Requested 

State. This provision can be important to the Requesting State (and in some cases 

the fugitive) so that, for example: (1) charges pending against the person can be resolved earlier while evidence is fresh, or (2) where the person sought is part of a 

criminal enterprise, he can be made available for assistance in the investigation and 

prosecution of other participants in the enterprise. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

7 

Fifth, both of these treaties incorporate a number of procedural improvements 

over the 1901 Treaty, including direct transmission of provisional arrest requests 

through Justice Department channels, waiver and consent to extradition, and clear 

statements of the required materials to be included in a formal extradition request. 

For all these reasons, U.S. ratification of the extradition treaties with Kosovo and 

Serbia will help us and our colleagues at the Justice Department further develop 

two important law enforcement relationships and advance our objective of combatting transnational crime. 

MARITIME BOUNDARY TREATIES WITH KIRIBATI AND

THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

In an area where more than one country has maritime entitlements under international law, maritime boundaries are needed to clarify where each country may exercise its sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction as a coastal State. In this 

connection, it is often noted that ‘‘good fences make good neighbors.’’ Delimited 

boundaries also provide legal certainty that enhances our ability to explore, benefit 

from, conserve, and manage the natural resources of our maritime areas, including 

with respect to our fisheries. Resolving the outstanding maritime boundaries of the 

United States around the world remains an ongoing project, with about a dozen 

such boundaries yet to be fully agreed with our neighbors. 

These two treaties delimit the exclusive economic zone (or ‘‘EEZ’’) and continental 

shelf between the United States and Kiribati, and between the United States and 

the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), on the basis of equidistance. (Every point 

on an equidistance line is equal in distance from the nearest point on the coastline 

of each country.) This approach is wholly in line with international law and practice, 

and moreover serves to formalize the longstanding status quo regarding each side’s 

asserted rights and jurisdiction in these maritime areas. Accordingly, with appropriate technical adjustments, each treaty formalizes boundaries that have been informally adhered to by the Parties, and that are very similar to the existing limit 

lines of the EEZ asserted by the United States for decades and published in the 

Federal Register. Because of improved calculation methodologies and minor coastline changes, the four new maritime boundaries in these two treaties will result in 

a small net gain, primarily with respect to the Kiribati boundaries, of United States 

EEZ and continental shelf area relative to the existing limit lines of our EEZ. 

The treaty with FSM establishes a single maritime boundary between Guam and 

several FSM islands. The boundary is approximately 447 nautical miles with 16 

turning and terminal points. The treaty with Kiribati establishes three maritime 

boundaries in the Pacific with respect to the EEZ and continental shelf generated 

by various Kiribati islands and by each of the U.S. islands of Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef, Jarvis Island, and Baker Island. Specifically, the treaty with Kiribati defines three distinct boundary lines: for the boundary line between the United States’ 

Baker Island and the Kiribati Phoenix Islands group, six points are connected by 

geodesic lines that measure 332 nautical miles in total; for the boundary line between the United States’ Jarvis Island and the Kiribati Line Islands group, ten 

points are connected by geodesic lines that measure 548 nautical miles in total; and 

for the boundary line between the U.S. islands of Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef 

and the Kiribati Line Islands group, five points are connected by geodesic lines that 

measure 383 nautical miles in total. 

The form and content of the two treaties are very similar to each other, and to 

previous maritime boundary treaties between the United States and other Pacific 

island countries that have entered into force after receiving the Senate’s advice and 

consent. Each of the two treaties consists of seven articles, which set out the purpose of each treaty; the technical parameters; the geographic location of the boundary lines; standard language indicating the agreement of the Parties that, on the 

opposite side of each maritime boundary, each Party will not ‘‘claim or exercise for 

any purpose sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction with respect to the waters 

or seabed or subsoil’’; a clause that the establishment of the boundaries will not affect or prejudice either side’s position with respect to the rules of international law 

relating to the law of the sea; a provision for dispute settlement by negotiation or 

other peaceful means agreed upon by the Parties; and a provision that entry into 

force would follow an exchange of notes indicating that each side has completed its 

internal procedures. For the purpose of illustration only, the boundaries are depicted on maps attached to the treaties. 

The treaties do not limit how we may choose to manage, conserve, explore, or develop the U.S. EEZ and continental shelf consistent with international law; they 

merely clarify the geographic scope of our sovereign rights and jurisdiction consistent with international law and with longstanding unilateral U.S. practice, and 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

8 

they reinforce other countries’ recognition of the U.S. EEZ and continental shelf entitlements around the U.S. islands in question. 

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF

RECEIVABLES IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE

The United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International 

Trade establishes uniform international rules governing a form of financing widely 

used in the United States involving the assignment of receivables. Expanded access 

to receivables financing in international trade, which the Convention would promote, will provide American businesses an additional source of capital at no cost to 

the U.S. taxpayer and require no material change to existing U.S. laws. This should 

particularly benefit small and medium-sized businesses that use receivables financing. 

The Convention, which is largely based on U.S. law, provides modern, uniform 

rules for transactions in which businesses either sell their rights to payments from 

their customers (known as ‘‘receivables’’) to a bank or other financial institution, or 

use their rights to these payments as collateral for a loan from a lender (the businesses selling or using their receivables as collateral are referred to as ‘‘assignors’’ 

and buyers and lenders are referred to as ‘‘assignees’’). Such transactions enable 

businesses to obtain greater access to credit at lower cost and thereby expand their 

operations. 

These so-called ‘‘assignments of receivables’’ transactions are well established in 

the United States as a method of obtaining low-cost credit, and are governed by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which has been adopted by all U.S. 

States and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Convention provides economically-useful rules for cross-border transactions involving receivables typically generated in the exchange of goods or services for payment and 

from other commercial transactions. 

The assignment of these types of receivables is common and relatively easy to effect in the United States when only domestic assignors and domestic receivables are 

involved. When these transactions cross international boundaries, however, determining whether U.S. law or the law of another country applies is fraught with uncertainty—not only as to which country’s laws apply but also the nature of those 

laws. In addition, even if one can determine which country’s laws apply and what 

those laws say, those laws may not be very helpful for receivables financing. As The 

Convention addresses both aspects of these problems—the conflict of laws problem 

and substantive legal rules problem. 

1. The Key Conflict of Laws Provision 

The Convention governs assignments of receivables that have an international dimension. In particular, the Convention applies both to assignments of receivables 

when the assignor and the debtor on the receivables (‘‘account debtor’’ for U.S. law 

purposes) are located in different countries and to the assignment of receivables 

when the assignor and the assignee of the receivables are located in different countries. In either case, without the benefit of the Convention, the fact that the transaction involves more than one country creates uncertainty as to which country’s substantive law governs because the conflict of laws rules that would determine the answer vary significantly from one country to another. Even after determining which 

country’s law governs, one must determine what that law is and how it applies to 

the transaction. This uncertainty adds significant risk to these international transactions, making credit based on them harder to obtain and more costly. 

One of the most important aspects of the Convention is Article 22, which sets 

forth a clear rule as to which country’s substantive law governs the priority of an 

assignee’s interest in receivables as against competing claimants. Competing claimants may include other assignees of the same receivable, creditors of the assignor 

who have obtained rights in the receivable, or a bankruptcy trustee of the assignor. 

Article 22 provides that the law of the country in which the assignor of the receivable is located governs the priority of the assignment against competing claimants. 

This is critically important because assignees are unlikely to enter into receivables 

financing transactions on favorable credit terms if there is uncertainty as to the priority of their claim to the receivables. 

2. Substantive Rules Governing the Assignment of Receivables 

In addition to the conflict of laws rule, the Convention also provides a set of clear 

substantive rules governing important aspects of receivables financing, including 

practices that facilitate receivables financing and provide for a predictable resolution of issues that follows the general approach of UCC Article 9. Those Convention 

rules would override limitations in effect in many countries that restrict the usefulFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

9 

ness of receivables financing (but not United States law under UCC Article 9, because the Convention rules are largely consistent with UCC Article 9). For example, 

Article 8 of the Convention, consistent with UCC Article 9, makes effective (1) the 

assignment of existing and future receivables to secure current and future advances, 

(2) the bulk assignment of receivables, and (3) the assignment of partial and undivided interests in receivables even if a country’s internal law (unlike the United 

States) would otherwise restrict these transactions. It also reduces the need for excessive formality and documentation costs by permitting the receivables that are assigned to be described generally in the contract of assignment, which is consistent 

with UCC Article 9. 

For assignments within the scope of the Convention, Article 9 of the Convention, 

like Article 9 of the UCC, overrides certain contractual limitations on assignments 

of trade receivables. Consistent with UCC Article 9, the treaty provides that the assignment of such a receivable is effective notwithstanding any agreement between 

the account debtor (i.e. the debtor on the receivable) and the assignor (i.e. the account debtor’s creditor) limiting the assignor’s right to assign that receivable. This 

provision is particularly useful in transactions in which a business assigns a large 

number of its receivables created under a number of transactions because it avoids 

the otherwise hefty costs of the lender examining each contract creating a receivable 

to see if the contract limits assignment of the receivable. 

The Convention also sets out certain rights and obligations of the assignor and 

assignee that flow from the assignment of the receivables. For example, under Article 13, the assignee may notify the debtor and request payment. Article 14 sets out 

the assignee’s right as against the assignor to proceeds of receivables (such as cash 

payments when the receivable has been collected). 

Because the Convention contains rules reflecting modern receivables financing 

practices consistent with those in UCC Article 9, widespread ratification of the Convention will help countries outside the United States modernize their receivables financing laws and enable this type of access to credit for companies engaged in crossborder trade without causing disruption to businesses in the United States that rely 

on, and have mastered, the rules in UCC Article 9. 

3. Relationship to U.S. Law 

There is a strong correspondence between the Convention and U.S. law. Negotiation of the Convention was supported by the leadership of the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) and members of the American Law Institute (ALI) (the ULC’s partner in developing the UCC). Members of both organizations participated in the U.S. 

delegation to the United Nations Commission on International Trade (UNCITRAL) 

as the Convention was being negotiated. In fact, the timing of the Convention coincided with the domestic revision of UCC Article 9, and many of the participants in 

the U.S. law reform project also participated in the preparation of the Convention. 

After the Convention was adopted, a ULC Committee, along with experts from the 

ALI, reviewed the Convention for the purpose of determining its suitability for ratification by the United States. They issued a committee report, which was approved 

by the ULC, proposing formulations for declarations and understandings, aimed at 

assuring consistency with practice under UCC Article 9 and facilitating application 

of the Convention in the United States. As reflected in the treaty transmittal package, the executive branch has proposed declarations and understandings to accompany the Senate’s advice and consent to the Convention. These proposed declarations and understandings are consistent with the recommendations of the ULC and 

ALI committee of experts. They would provide additional clarity about how the 

United States will implement the Convention domestically and facilitate its application in a manner consistent with existing practice in the United States under UCC 

Article 9. Proposed understandings address the scope of the Convention (including 

its inapplicability to securities and to rights other than contractual rights to payment under intellectual property licenses), the ability of states to provide additional 

rights to an assignee with respect to the proceeds of a receivable beyond the minimum level of rights required by the Convention, and the meanings of certain terms 

used in the Convention. Proposed declarations address how the Convention will 

apply in the context of certain insolvency proceedings, how it will apply to certain 

contracts entered into by governmental entities or other entities constituted for a 

public purpose, and rules for determining which U.S. state laws will apply in circumstances where the Convention requires reference to applicable U.S. law. In addition, a proposed declaration provides that the United States will not be bound by 

optional provisions of the Convention addressing choice of law rules. These proposed 

understandings and declarations are discussed in detail in the treaty transmittal 

package. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

10 

The treaty would be self-executing, which is consistent with the recommendation 

of the ULC Committee. There is no need for federal or state implementing legislation. Ratification of the Convention would not change U.S. practice in this area in 

any material respect. The Convention’s rules are largely based on U.S. law and will 

produce substantially the same results as those under the UCC Article 9. 

4. Benefits of U.S. Ratification 

Widespread ratification of the Convention would help businesses in the United 

States gain access to capital to conduct international trade. The importance of these 

benefits is underscored by the support the Convention has received from the U.S. 

business community. Industry associations that have written to the committee to express their support for the Convention include the Financial Services Roundtable, 

the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Bankers Association for Trade and Finance, the 

Commercial Finance Association, the Equipment Leasing and Finance Association, 

and the U.S. Council for International Business. The American Bar Association and 

the Uniform Law Commission have also expressed their support for the Convention. 

Because the Convention is based on U.S. law, and because of the leading role the 

United States has played in receivables financing, other countries will be less likely 

to join the Convention if the United States declines to ratify it. Currently, one country—Liberia—has ratified the Convention. Five countries must ratify it in order for 

it to enter into force. U.S. ratification could have a particularly important leadership 

impact in this regard. There are currently a number of regional initiatives underway focused on reforming the law of secured transactions, including in Latin America, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. Expanded ratification of the Convention in 

the near term has the potential to influence these initiatives and to expand the acceptance and use of the Convention’s framework for receivables financing in these 

regions. In addition, the European Union (EU) is currently involved in an effort to 

develop an internal legal framework concerning the law applicable to third party effects of the assignment of receivables. While there is significant support in the EU 

for the approach taken in the Convention (and thus under U.S. law), there is also 

some support for alternative choice of law rules in some cases that would be inconsistent with the Convention and would thus introduce uncertainty into receivables 

financing governed by the alternative rules. U.S. ratification could helpfully influence the EU process to ensure that the framework adopted is consistent with the 

Convention (and therefore U.S. law). 

In summary, ratification of the Convention is an important step to providing 

American businesses a significant additional source of capital at no cost to the U.S. 

taxpayer and no material change to existing U.S. laws. These benefits will be particularly important for small and medium sized businesses that use receivables financing. Widespread ratification of the Convention would give American businesses 

an additional advantage in international transactions as the Convention mirrors 

American law and practices. 

The administration urges the Senate to provide advice and consent to their ratification. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Visek. 

We are now going to hear from Bruce Swartz, who is Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Counselor for International Affairs. 

Mr. Swartz? 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE SWARTZ, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SWARTZ. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the two modern extradition treaties with Kosovo and Serbia 

that are before the committee today directly advanced the interests 

of the United States in fighting international terrorism and 

transnational crime. 

Mr. Chairman, as you noted, both these treaties update and replace the 1901 treaty between the United States and the Kingdom 

of Serbia. As was typical at the time of the 1901 treaty, these were 

list treaties at that period. That is, they set out a series of offenses, 

a rather narrow set of offenses, subject to extradition. Those treaties at the time also did not require the extradition of nationals. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

11 

The modern extradition treaties before you, in contrast, update 

and deal with both of these defects, and, in so doing, protect American citizens and advance our law enforcement interests. 

The treaties accomplish this in four different respects. 

First, as has been noted, it deals with the issue of nationality as 

a bar to extradition, and that has practical consequences for U.S. 

law enforcement. Under the new treaties, nationality will no longer 

serve as an obstacle to extradition. But under the existing treaties, 

we have encountered, both with regard to Kosovo and Serbia, what 

happens when nationality can be a bar. 

So, for instance, with respect to Kosovo, the United States sought 

but was unable to obtain the extradition of a Kosovar national who 

committed murder and then fled back to Kosovo. Similarly, with regard to Serbia, nationality served as a bar to the extradition of a 

Serbian national, who while a student in the United States committed a brutal assault on a fellow American and then fled back 

to Serbia. 

Neither of those results will follow under the new, modern extradition treaties with Kosovo and Serbia. 

Senator RISCH. Will the new treaties allow us to reach back or 

not? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, they will. In the case of the treaty 

with Serbia, we can reach back as far as 2005. That is, with offenses from 2005 forward, nationality will not be a bar. Prior to 

that time, it will be discretionary. But we believe that will reach 

most of the offenses, particularly given the passage of time under 

the statute of limitations. 

But that also leads, Mr. Chairman, to the second respect in 

which we have a significant advance in these treaties, and that is 

the substitution of dual criminality, as it is referred to, for an approach that just lists a particular set of crimes. By taking out the 

perspective that only crimes listed in the treaty are the ones subject to extradition, we now have an approach that deals with the 

evolution of crime. 

So, for instance, the original treaty, the 1901 treaty, did not contemplate such crimes as cybercrime or particular forms of terrorism. Now, however, under the approach of dual criminality—in 

which an offense that is punishable by more than 1 year of imprisonment in both countries serves as a basis for extradition—we will 

be able to reach modern forms of criminality, and we will have 

treaties that evolve as crime evolves. There will be no need to 

change a list that exists. 

The third respect in which these treaties are a significant advance is their reach to extraterritorial offenses. Here, too, we have 

seen the practical bar that can exist under the 1901 treaty. 

For instance, in the case of Kosovo, the United States sought the 

extradition of an individual who was engaging in material support 

of terrorism by using his computer in Kosovo to facilitate the travel 

of foreign terrorist fighters to Iraq and Afghanistan. Because the 

1901 treaty does not reach offenses of that nature, extraterritorial 

offenses, because it only covers offenses that take place within the 

country seeking extradition, extradition was denied as to that individual. But again, under the modern treaty, extraterritorial ofFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

12 

fenses will be covered. And that is particularly important for offenses such as terrorism and narcotics trafficking. 

And then in the fourth respect, the treaty has a number of provisions that expand and speed extradition. Those include provisions 

that make clear that, when the United States seeks extradition 

from Kosovo or Serbia, it will be our statute of limitations that controls, not those of the requested state. 

Similarly, it streamlines provisional arrest, which is the ability 

to arrest a fugitive before a full extradition package is submitted. 

And it also allows for temporary surrender, which means that we 

can seek the extradition of someone being held in prison in Kosovo 

or Serbia for immediate trial in the United States, and then return 

to have him or her serve out the remainder of their sentence in 

those countries. 

So in all four of these respects, we are overcoming not just theoretical obstacles but practical obstacles that we have encountered 

with respect to our extradition relationship with Kosovo and Serbia. These represent significant advances, and they are consistent 

with the approach we have taken in modernizing our extradition 

treaties and extending the network of extradition treaties. 

We are very grateful for the support we have had from this committee for that process. We believe that, together, we have been 

able to ensure that fugitives have fewer safe havens around the 

world. And we, therefore, are very happy to have this opportunity 

to advance these treaties. 

We would request, respectfully, favorable consideration by committee. And I look forward to answering any questions you might 

have. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Mr. Swartz’s prepared statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE SWARTZ

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you 

today to present the views of the Department of Justice on extradition treaties between the United States and the Republics of Kosovo and Serbia. These historic 

treaties directly advance the interests of the United States in fighting terrorism and 

transnational crime. 

At the outset, I wish to note that the decision to proceed with the negotiation of 

law enforcement treaties such as these is made jointly by the Departments of State 

and Justice, after careful consideration of our international law enforcement priorities. The Departments of Justice and State also participated together in the negotiation of each of these treaties. Accordingly, we join the Department of State today 

in urging the committee to report favorably to the Senate and recommend its advice 

and consent to ratification. 

The Departments of Justice and State have prepared and submitted to the committee detailed analyses of the extradition treaties in the Letter of Submittal. In 

my testimony today, I will concentrate on why these updated extradition treaties 

are important instruments for United States law enforcement agencies engaged in 

investigating and prosecuting terrorism and other serious criminal offenses. 

THE U.S.-REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO EXTRADITION AGREEMENT

At the outset, I must note for this committee that the United States and Kosovo 

currently operate under the 1901 extradition treaty between the United States and 

the Kingdom of Servia. Kosovo is treated as a successor state under that instrument. The ‘‘list’’ treaty is antiquated and limited, and is not suitable for meeting 

21st Century law enforcement challenges. I will further elaborate on this point later 

in my testimony. 

Pursuant to a June 1999 United Nations Security Council resolution, the U.N. established an international civil and security presence in Kosovo, the U.N. Interim 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

13 

Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), which still exists today. In September 

2012, international supervision ended, and Kosovo became responsible for its own 

governance. While an UNMIK team had been handling prosecutions in Kosovo, the 

Kosovars have now assumed most of this responsibility.Despite being relatively new, 

Kosovar prosecutors are competent, establishing fair jurisprudence, and observing 

fundamental due process. 

To fully empower both Kosovar and U.S. law enforcement officials with the tools 

that they need to combat global crime, a new extradition treaty is necessary. The 

Extradition Treaty before this committee includes both substantive and procedural 

‘‘improvements’’ from the 1901 treaty. Allow me now to highlight a few of these critical improvements. 

Substantive Improvements 

The Extradition Treaty before this committee contains new substantive provisions 

that did not exist in the 1901 extradition treaty. Perhaps most importantly, the new 

Extradition Treaty accommodates the requirements of the Kosovar constitution to 

permit extradition of nationals. The Kosovo Supreme Court has ruled that citizens 

of Kosovo cannot be extradited under the language of the 1901 treaty, because the 

treaty provides that neither country is bound to extradite its nationals, and the 

Kosovo constitution prohibits the extradition of nationals in the absence of a bilateral extradition treaty requiring such extraditions. As a consequence, in recent 

years, Kosovo denied a U.S. extradition request where the U.S. sought a fugitive for 

murder. The denial was premised on the fugitive’s Kosovo citizenship. Under the 

new Extradition Treaty, extradition can no longer be refused solely on the basis of 

the nationality of the person sought. 

Moreover, the new Extradition Treaty not only allows for the extradition of nationals, but expands the types of crimes for which extradition can be sought. While 

the existing 1901 extradition treaty defines extraditable offenses by reference to a 

list of crimes enumerated in the treaty itself, the treaty before this committee reflects the reality that crimes have become increasingly complex over the last century. A ‘‘list treaty’’ may present limits to extradition for newly emerging forms of 

criminality that the United States has a strong interest in pursuing, such as 

cybercrime and environmental offenses. The new Extradition Treaty will replace the 

old list of offenses with a modern ‘‘dual criminality’’ provision. This means that the 

obligation to extradite applies to all offenses that are punishable in both countries 

by a minimum term of imprisonment of more than one year. This is a critical improvement, since extradition will be possible in the future with respect to the broadest possible range of serious offenses, without the need to repeatedly update treaties 

as new forms of criminality are recognized. 

This expansive provision is material to our extradition requests for 

extraterritorial offenses. For the United States, extraterritorial jurisdiction is important in two areas of particular concern: drug trafficking and terrorism. Under the 

1901 treaty, Kosovo recently denied our extradition request for a fugitive wanted 

for prosecution on charges of providing material support for terrorism—having facilitated the travel of foreign fighters—although communicating from Kosovo with 

other facilitators via the Internet. The Supreme Court of Kosovo held that the language of the 1901 extradition treaty did not provide for extradition of a person for 

a crime committed in the requested state. Under the new Extradition Treaty, 

Kosovo will no longer be able to deny our extradition requests on the sole basis that 

a criminal act occurred in Kosovo, not in the United States. 

Furthermore, the new Extradition Treaty ensures that the only applicable statute 

of limitations is that of the country making the extradition request. Accordingly, 

this provision ensures that the U.S. prosecutors will maintain procedural control 

over the viability of their cases, rather than being at the mercy of foreign statutes 

of limitations. 

Procedural Improvements 

In addition to the substantive improvements, the Extradition Treaty before this 

committee includes procedural enhancements, which streamline the extradition 

process. For example, the Treaty contains a ‘‘temporary surrender’’ provision, which 

allows a person found extraditable, but already in custody abroad for another criminal charge, to be temporarily surrendered for purposes of trial. Absent temporary 

surrender provisions, we face the problem of delaying the fugitive’s surrender, sometimes for many years, while the fugitive serves out a sentence in another country. 

As a result, during this time, the U.S. case against the fugitive becomes stale, and 

the victims are delayed justice for the crimes committed against them. 

Further, the Extradition Treaty also allows the fugitive to waive extradition, or 

otherwise agree to immediate surrender, thereby substantially speeding up the fugiFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

14 

tive’s return in uncontested cases. The Treaty also streamlines the channels for 

seeking ‘‘provisional arrest’’—the process by which a fugitive can be immediately detained while documents in support of extradition are prepared, translated, and submitted through the diplomatic channel—and the procedures for supplementing an 

extradition request that already has been presented to the requested country. 

Together, the procedural and substantive improvements to the Extradition Treaty 

will ensure that U.S. prosecutors and law enforcement officials are better positioned 

to combat crime in an ever globally integrated and interdependent world. 

THE U.S.-REPUBLIC OF SERBIA EXTRADITION AGREEMENT

The United States and Serbia also operate pursuant to the same 1901 extradition 

treaty between the United States and the Kingdom of Servia. 

However, unlike Kosovo, as applied to Serbia, the 1901 treaty is augmented by 

the extradition provisions applicable under multilateral conventions to which Serbia 

and the United States are parties. As a practical matter, this permits both countries 

to extradite fugitives for a broader scope of conduct apart from the enumerated list 

of crimes in the 1901 treaty. For example, both countries are party to the United 

Nations Transnational Organized Crime Convention, the U.N. Convention against 

Corruption, and the 1988 Vienna Drug Convention, all of which serve to augment 

the provisions in existing bilateral extradition treaties. 

Nevertheless, none of these multilateral treaties addresses one of the most important aspects of modern extradition practice: allowing for the extradition of nationals. 

In contrast, much like the proposed U.S.-Kosovo Extradition Treaty, the U.S.-Serbia 

Extradition Treaty before this committee, allows for the extradition of nationals. 

Furthermore, unless the U.S. and Serbia become parties to an exhaustive list of 

multilateral conventions that cover every possible crime, we leave ourselves vulnerable to the possibility of gaps. The U.S.-Serbia Extradition Treaty before this committee minimizes the possibility of these gaps. As is found in the proposed U.S.- 

Kosovo Extradition Treaty, the U.S.-Serbia Treaty under consideration includes a 

‘‘dual criminality’’ provision, which allows extradition with regards to all offenses 

that are punishable in both countries by a minimum term of imprisonment of more 

than one year. 

In addition to the provision which allows extradition of nationals, and the inclusion of the critical ‘‘dual criminality’’ method, the U.S.-Serbia Extradition Treaty before this committee includes all of the substantive and procedural improvements as 

contained in the proposed U.S.- Kosovo Extradition Treaty. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the committee’s support in our efforts 

to strengthen the framework of treaties that assist us in combatting international 

crime. For the Department of Justice, modern extradition treaties are particularly 

critical law enforcement tools. To the extent that we can update our existing agreements in a way that enables cooperation to be more efficient and effective, we are 

advancing the protection of our citizens. Accordingly, we join the State Department 

in urging the prompt and favorable consideration of these law enforcement treaties. 

I would be pleased to respond to any questions the committee may have. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much. Thank you to both of you. 

We are going to do a round of questions here. Before I do, I am 

going to include two pieces of correspondence the committee has received. One is from the Uniform Law Commission, the National 

Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, supporting 

these. And then also I am going to include a letter signed by a 

number of primarily financial institutions, and it is also in support 

of the treaties. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also a signatory to those. 

[The information referred to above is located at the end of this 

hearing transcript.] 

Senator RISCH. So with that, we are going to do some brief questions, and then we are going to submit some questions for the 

record for you. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

15 

The first one I have, I do not know which one of you wants to 

take a swing at this, but can you talk a little bit about the impact 

that any of these treaties would have as far as small business is 

concerned, and gauge the importance of these treaties for small 

businesses here in America? 

Mr. Visek, you look like you want to volunteer. 

Mr. VISEK. That is just my nature. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I think the benefits for small- and mid-sized businesses will obviously be most prevalent with respect to the U.N. Convention on the 

Assignment of Receivables in International Trade. 

I think the challenge for small businesses and mid-sized businesses is oftentimes obtaining sufficient cash flow and working capital. And currently, U.S. companies can be hampered in their ability to increase their exports because they have difficulty obtaining 

working capital financing based on receivables arising from the 

sale of exported goods. 

These companies could obtain financing by offering the receivables as collateral for loans from U.S. banks and other lenders. 

However, these lenders often are unwilling to make loans secured 

by receivables owed by customers in other countries whose laws are 

inconsistent with modern commercial finance practice. They may 

also be deterred by the fact that they have to be concerned about 

perfecting their claims in multiple countries because the choice of 

law rules may not be clear. 

Widespread ratification of the convention would go a long way towards remedying this situation. It is hoped that, if the United 

States were to ratify the convention, which in large measure dovetails with and is based on Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial 

Code, it would serve as a catalyst and prompt other nations to follow suit. 

In turn, that would create greater uniformity and reduce the 

legal risks associated with cross-border transactions involving 

those countries, and it would provide uniform rules that would go 

a long way, if you will, toward making it easier to obtain not only 

capital but also financing for export receivables. 

In turn, this, hopefully, would enable small, mid-size, and large 

companies to enhance the growth of their exports by U.S. companies, because they would be able to obtain the financing. And in 

turn that would presumably help U.S. companies compete in the 

global marketplace and create new jobs in the United States. 

Thank you. 

Senator RISCH. Mr. Swartz? 

Mr. SWARTZ. And, Mr. Chairman, if I might add, extradition treaties also, although they are not oftentimes seen in this respect, 

serve as a benefit to U.S. companies both large and small. Among 

other things, it makes possible the return of fugitives who have 

sought to defraud U.S. companies, and that is important for certainty that punishment will be extended to those who acted against 

U.S. companies. 

And it is particularly important under these modern treaties that 

cybercrime is now covered as well, since we know that through 

business email compromise and other types of fraud schemes using 

the internet, American companies have been taken advantage of. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

16 

So we fully expect these treaties will be at the interests of not 

only the U.S. citizens but U.S. companies as well. 

Thank you. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Visek, you made reference to Article 9 of the UCC. When I 

was in law school, I wrote a treatise regarding that, and I am going 

to spare you the niceties of going into the details of that, at the risk 

of putting my colleagues to sleep. 

One last question. This committee has, at times over the years, 

considered what we call the Law of the Sea Treaty. It is actually 

the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. The one treaty we 

have discussed here between the Republic of Kiribati, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the United States, does it have 

any connection, any effect, have anything to do with the Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty? 

Mr. VISEK. The short answer is that the accession to the Law of 

the Sea Convention is a separate issue from the Federated States 

of Micronesia and Kiribati maritime boundary treaties. The boundary treaties are treaties between the United States and those respective nations, and they establish EEZ limits that in many ways 

resemble the existing EEZ limits that all the parties informally recognize currently. What it would do is, in effect, codify those in the 

form of a treaty and, in doing so, would provide greater support for 

them. But they are independent of what is known as the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

And with respect to the Law of the Sea Convention, I think Secretary Tillerson, during his confirmation process, said that he will 

examine the Law of the Sea Convention to determine whether it 

is in the continued best interests of the United States to become 

a party. And if I recall correctly, the chair of the committee, Senator Corker, sent a letter to the State Department asking about our 

treaty priorities, and we are in the process of consulting interagency and conducting that review. 

Senator RISCH. I appreciate that. 

Back to the ones in front of us, does the text of it make any reference to or suggestion about the Law of Sea Treaty or convention? 

Mr. VISEK. Senator, without having an encyclopedic memory, it 

is my understanding that it does not. 

Senator RISCH. Would you double-check that and confirm that in 

writing? 

Mr. VISEK. Yes, we will. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. 

Mr. Swartz, do you have anything to add to this? 

Mr. SWARTZ. No, Senator, I do not. 

Senator RISCH. Okay, thank you very much. 

Senator Shaheen? 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Visek, currently, only one country, Liberia, has ratified the 

U.N. Convention on the Assignment of Receivables, and five countries have to ratify the treaty. 

Can you tell us which countries after the United States, should 

we ratify, are most likely to file a suit? 

Mr. VISEK. Thank you, Senator. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

17 

Unfortunately, I do not have crystal ball. I can tell you that other 

states that have signed are Madagascar and Luxemburg, in addition to the United States. 

I think, though, what makes this convention particularly ripe at 

this point is that there is increased interest in receivables financing globally, as the global economy develops, both in Asia and 

Latin America. And the EU itself is looking at the issue of receivables financing. 

The convention was, in large measure, based on U.S. law. I am 

reminded of when I studied the Uniform Commercial Code, which 

was in 1985, and I felt somewhat emboldened at that point, only 

to find out that Article 9 had been amended in the late 1990s. But 

it was also about that time, shortly thereafter, that the convention 

was being negotiated. So it was very much informed by UCC Article 9. 

I think the way we look at this is, if the United States has not 

ratified the convention that is based on its own Uniform Commercial Code and is consistent with the laws of all 50 States, that 

sends a negative signal. If we do ratify, and given the nature of our 

law, we obviously think we should, given the importance of the 

United States to the economic global environment, I think that 

would serve as a powerful catalyst for other nations to follow suit. 

It would also influence discussions and consideration in various 

nations and within the EU, for example, on how to approach the 

financing of receivables. 

I hope that answers your question. 

Senator SHAHEEN. That is helpful. 

Senator Risch has already talked about the potential impact on 

small and medium-sized businesses in the U.S., which I just want 

to reiterate that I think is also very important. And as I understand, one of the benefits of this treaty is that it would allow business to use international trade deals that they have already negotiated as collateral for borrowing. 

Am I interpreting that correctly? 

Mr. VISEK. That is correct. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. So I think it would have a real 

benefit in that respect to many of our small and medium-sized 

businesses. 

Mr. Swartz, I understand that most extradition treaties bar extradition for political offenses, but the two extradition treaties before us today, as I understand, limit the scope of that exemption. 

Can you describe how the exemption has been narrowed? And is 

this a common feature among extradition treaties? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Thank you, Senator. 

Yes, we have sought to ensure that the political offense exception 

is not misused to apply to offenses that we consider to be crimes, 

such as murder, terrorist offenses, or other similar acts. 

So it has been the policy of the United States, and in the prior 

treaties to which this committee and the Senate have given advice 

and consent, to have a list of offenses that are not covered by the 

political offense exception. So that covers multilateral offenses, so 

the offenses under our various terrorism conventions. It covers 

murder, kidnapping, assault, and similar offenses. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

18 

This treaty, the treaty with Kosovo, and similarly the treaty with 

Serbia, both add to the offenses, offenses involving chemical, biological, or radiological weapons, a further advance that we wanted 

to solidify in these conventions to make clear that individuals using 

such weapons cannot claim that they did so on a political basis 

and, therefore, should not be subject to extradition. 

It also has a number of other provisions that make clear that 

conspiracy or attempt to engage in such activity is also not a basis 

for refusing extradition. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

So how does our Department of Justice account for different perceptions and standards of evidence among the different nations 

when we are looking at extradition treaties? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Senator, thank you for that question, because it 

does touch on an important point. 

When we receive an extradition request, which first is transmitted through diplomatic channels to the State Department and 

assessed at the State Department for consistency with the treaty 

before it is sent to the Department of Justice, we at the Department of Justice, at our Office of International Affairs, consider in 

the first instance whether, as prosecutors, we believe that the evidence submitted establishes the legal standard required in the 

United States for extradition, and that is probable cause. It is not 

a hearing or a full trial on the merits, but it is probable cause. 

And so the evidence submitted to the Department of Justice, 

through the State Department from the foreign country, has to be 

sufficient in our perspective to submit to the court. And then, significantly, the court has to find that probable cause exists on the 

evidence provided. 

So regardless of the standards of evidence in other countries, we 

consistently apply the same standard to our extradition requests 

here. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator RISCH. Senator Kaine? 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to the witnesses for you work and for being here 

today. I find each of these treaties unobjectionable and look forward to supporting them, unless I end up with an odd question or 

two, in which case I will reach back out to you. 

I actually wanted to ask you, as a way of sort of fleshing out philosophy on these matters, we had a hearing recently in this committee about sort of the role of the administration and the Congress on treaties, on things less than treaties, executive agreements. And one that troubled me recently was the decision of the 

United States to withdraw from the Global Compact on Migration, 

known as the New York Compact, that the administration announced 2 weeks ago. 

Now, I would like you to correct me if I state this wrong. My understanding is the New York Compact was a nonbinding agreement 

done in the U.N. General Assembly in September 2016 that essentially acknowledged the increasing severity of the global migrant 

and refugee crisis, and asked nations to commit to participating in 

a dialog about sort of new best practices for dealing with this. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

19 

This is something that the President has spoken about, about the 

problems of migrants and refugees. And I think the President is 

right. I may have some different ideas from the President about 

how to deal with it. We would all have different ideas. But I do not 

think you can turn a blind eye to the fact that the specter of global 

refugees not just driven by war or violence but now weather emergencies and droughts and other significant issues are turning refugees and migrants from sort of an episodic emergency management 

challenge to sort of a permanent reality, which they may well have 

been throughout time. But I think the world is coming to grips 

with that. 

The compact involved a meeting in Puerto Vallarta last week. 

And shortly before the meeting, the administration announced it 

was going to pull out of the compact and not attend this meeting 

to discuss best practices. 

As an editorial opinion, I do not see how the world deals with 

this problem as effectively as the world could deal with it without 

the U.S. at the table. 

And the administration’s asserted rationale for pulling out was 

that this nonbinding compact would intrude upon U.S. sovereignty. 

Now, in each of these instances, the four treaties before you, 

there could be sovereignty issues that would be raised, and we 

hashed them out. And it looks like, over time, we have gotten to 

a good point. But I could not understand why a nonbinding compact would raise sovereignty concerns. 

And I wanted to ask either of you whether your offices were involved either in the original work on the New York Compact in 

September 2016 or the decision or advice around the decision that 

led this administration to withdraw from the compact and withdraw from the meeting in Mexico. 

Mr. VISEK. Senator Kaine, I certainly appreciate your concerns. 

However, this is an issue that I am not well-versed in. I apologize 

for not being more so. And what I would commit, though, is if we 

could take that question back and provide you with a written answer. 

Senator KAINE. That would be fine. And I will ask a specific one 

for a written answer, but can I just ask—the only question I really 

asked was whether your office was involved in either the discussions around the New York Compact in September 2016 or the decision to remove. I had not asked a substantive question yet, just 

was this in the province or jurisdiction of your office within the Department of State? 

Mr. VISEK. I understand that we were consulted. I do not know 

the extent of those consultations. But certainly, we could address 

your question in writing. 

Senator KAINE. Then I will ask that specifically for the record. 

Mr. Swartz? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Thank you, Senator. 

From the law enforcement perspective, my office was not involved in this matter, but I will also go back to my colleagues at 

the Department of Justice and respond more generally. 

Senator KAINE. That would be helpful, because I think this is a 

law enforcement matter. I mean, migrants and refugees are a humanitarian crisis and disaster, but one of the reasons the President 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

20 

often talks about this, correctly, is that, within migrant or refugee 

flows, cunning people can hide or spirit people across borders to try 

to undertake acts of terrorism, to try to involve in poaching, human 

trafficking. The migrant and refugee problem can often be a mask 

for real law enforcement concerns. 

And I think the idea, as I understood it, for the Puerto Vallarta 

meeting was to talk about all of those aspects of migrants and refugees. So I am asking a question that has a humanitarian and a national security and a law enforcement perspective. 

So we will craft particular questions for the record about this and 

would look forward to your responses. 

Thank you. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Senator Kaine. 

With that, we want to thank you both. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I have more questions. 

Senator RISCH. Another round, Senator? 

Senator SHAHEEN. Yes, please. 

Senator RISCH. All right. Senator Shaheen has a little bit more 

for you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I guess this is for you, Mr. Swartz. I know 

that we have a lot of extradition requests with countries. Are all 

our extradition treaties with the United States more or less the 

same? Are there exceptions? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Senator, thank you for that question as well. It does 

go to the heart of the program we have underway to modernize our 

treaties. And the answer is no, they are not all the same because 

they extend back into the 19th century, in some cases, and as you 

know from this hearing, to 1901, with regard to these two countries 

before the committee today. 

So we have sought in recent times to ensure consistency and uniformity in the new extradition treaties we negotiate. There are 

some differences, depending on particular countries. 

But by and large, we have sought, as, Mr. Chairman, you noted, 

from the 1990s forward to ensure the extradition of nationals, to 

eliminate the list treaty approach and go forward with dual criminality. So we seek, in that respect, to try and have a modern approach across all of our treaties. 

And if I might ask, Mr. Chairman, if my testimony, which also 

touches on this question, if my written testimony could be submitted for the record as well, I would be grateful. 

Senator RISCH. We would be happy to have that. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And just to go back to my other question 

about the standards of evidence, are there other countries where 

we have extradition treaties that actually have higher standards of 

evidence than the United States? Do you know the answer to that? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Largely, extradition treaties do have similar standards for both sides. Sometimes, there are issues about exactly how 

each country interprets the approach. But in virtually all of our experience, the approach is one that looks to see whether or not some 

form of probable cause or reasonableness exists for the extradition. 

Some countries require a fuller production of evidence than 

would be required in the United States and vice versa. But again, 

largely across the broad range of our treaties, the approach is similar. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

21 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. And this final question is really 

for both of you. 

How do we handle terrorists or armed insurgents under extradition treaties? Do we have any guidance that is different from 

other potential people that we are trying to extradite? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Senator, one of the key aspects of updating our 

treaty is to reach terrorist offenses, in particular. We have a strong 

commitment to pursuing terrorists worldwide, to ensure that they 

do not have safe havens. So we have brought a number of cases 

from countries around the world where we have extradition treaties, seeking terrorists or others who have committed terrorist acts. 

And we have brought a number of those individuals back and successfully prosecuted them here in the United States. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And do we have any countries who have not 

been willing to give up terrorists, or people who we would determine to be terrorists and who they have refused to extradite to the 

United Sates? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Senator, it is an unfortunate fact that we do not 

win all our extradition cases. Of course, that is always our goal. 

With our key and trusted partners, we have had a large degree 

of success with this. If we have denials of extradition, it is usually 

not based on the individual being a terrorist or otherwise. There 

is oftentimes consideration such as whether the individual has 

been prosecuted previously or other factors that may lead a country 

to deny extradition. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen. That is 

an excellent question. 

And we have also had the unfortunate circumstance that some 

countries do this informally by simply hiding the individual. That 

does not happen often, but we all wish that it was a perfect world, 

but it is not, and particularly with governments. 

So with that, again, thank you to both of you for participating. 

We are going to keep the record open until the close of business 

on Friday, and there will be some questions for the record that will 

be submitted. 

Gentlemen, if you would get your answers back as promptly as 

possible, we will be able to complete this matter. 

Senator RISCH. And so with that, the hearing will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:14 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(23) 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO

RICHARD VISEK BY SENATOR TIM KAINE

Question 1. Was the Legal (L) bureau at the State Department or the DOJ involved in negotiating the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migration in 2016? 

Did you play a role or were you consulted on our withdrawal? 

Answer. The Office of the Legal Adviser at the Department of State was consulted 

and provided input throughout the process of negotiating the New York Declaration 

on Refugees and Migrants in 2016, as were relevant agencies. I am not in a position 

to speak specifically to the role of DOJ. 

Relevant agencies including the Department of State were also consulted before 

the decision was made to end U.S. participation in the UN process to develop a global compact on migration. The Office of the Legal Adviser provided advice to Department of State officials as part of that process. 

Question 2. Did legal experts in the State Department or DOJ determine the New 

York Declaration was inconsistent with U.S. domestic law? In what areas? By negotiating as part of this process, could the standards have been elevated to be consistent with U.S. law as in other negotiations on multilateral agreements? 

Answer. In all multilateral negotiations in which the United States participates, 

U.S. negotiators endeavor to ensure that any obligations or commitments that the 

United States would assume through the instrument are consistent with U.S. domestic law and existing international obligations. The Office of the Legal Adviser 

supports the Department in this process. To the extent these efforts do not fully succeed, the Department may recommend, for example, reservations or understandings 

to multilateral treaties or agreements, or explanations of position with regard to instruments that are not legally binding. The Department may also recommend that 

the United States not become a party to or sign or support a particular instrument. 

Due to professional obligations of attorneys providing advice to clients, I am not in 

a position to disclose the legal advice the Office of the Legal Adviser provided to 

the Department, nor am I in a position to speak to DOJ’s conclusions. 

Question 3. Do you see any utility in the U.S. withdrawing from this process prior 

to a final agreement? Could the legal professionals in your offices have helped 

shaped a compact on migration to be consistent with U.S. law as in the United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade? 

Answer. As noted above, the State Department and other relevant agencies were 

consulted before the decision was made to end U.S. participation in the UN process 

to develop a global compact on migration. Where a policy decision is made to participate in multilateral negotiations, U.S. negotiators, with support from the Office of 

the Legal Adviser, endeavor to ensure that any obligations or commitments that the 

United States would assume through the instrument are consistent with U.S. domestic law and existing international obligations. Ultimately the question whether 

to participate in a multilateral negotiation is a policy judgment, informed by legal 

advice. Due to professional obligations of attorneys providing advice to clients, I am 

not in a position to comment on the advice the Office of the Legal Adviser provided 

on this issue. 

Question 4. In negotiations of treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and instruments containing non-legally binding political commitments, in 

which the Department of State participates, Department negotiators endeavor to ensure that any obligations or commitments that the United States would assume 

through the instrument are consistent with U.S. domestic law and existing international obligations. The Office of the Legal Adviser supports the Department in 

this process. 

• Can you detail how your offices generally ensure that any international agreement, accord or treaty comply with U.S. law? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

24 

Answer. When the Department of State is considering whether the United States 

(or an agency thereof) should become party to a treaty or an international agreement other than a treaty, or should sign or support adoption of an international instrument containing non-legally binding political commitments, the Department, including the Office of the Legal Adviser, reviews the instrument to ensure that it is 

consistent with U.S. law and existing international legal obligations of the United 

States. As appropriate, other agencies of the U.S. Government are consulted as a 

part of this review. For some instruments, we also consult with any domestic stakeholders who may be affected. As a result of the review, the Department may recommend, for example, reservations or understandings to multilateral treaties or 

agreements, or explanations of position with regard to instruments that are not legally binding, to ensure that the United States does not take on obligations or commitments that would be inconsistent with U.S. law or existing international obligations. 

Question 5. Do you believe non-binding compacts that include voluntary commitments impinge on U.S. sovereignty? 

Answer. The Office of the Legal Adviser is responsible for advising on legal issues 

associated with treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and international instruments that are not legally binding when they are being considered 

by the Department of State. Whether particular instruments are consistent with 

U.S. interests is a question that is typically considered by relevant policy officials; 

the Office of the Legal Adviser provides legal advice and legal policy views as appropriate. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

25 

CORRESPONDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE TREATIES

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CoalitionOne-1.eps

December 12,2017 

The Honorable Bob Corker 

Chairman 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Ben Cardin 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Support for Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade 

Dear Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin: 

The undersigned trade associations, which represent businesses that encompass all sectors 

of the U.S. economy and employ millions of people, strongly support and endorse the Convention 

on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade (the Convention) and respectfully ask 

that you move expeditiously towards its ratification. Enactment of the Convention would make it 

easier for U.S. small and medium-sized businesses to access additional financing from lenders 

based on their sales of goods and services to customers located in other countries that ratify the 

Convention. 

The Convention is self-executing, meaning that no state or federal legislation is needed. 

Thus, there is no cost to the U.S. government or taxpayers in ratifying the Convention. Experts 

from the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws participated fully in the 

formulation of the Convention and have determined that there would be no implementation issues 

in ratifying the Convention. 

U.S. small and medium-sized businesses often obtain vital financing by using their 

receivables as collateral for loans and other forms of financing. Article 9 of the Unifonn 

Commercial Code makes this type of fmaneing uncomplicated and readily available when the 

receivables are owed by customers located in the United States. However, U.S. lenders often are 

unable or unwilling to extend credit to U.S. companies seeking to borrow against their 

receivables owed by customers i.n other countries because the laws in many foreign countries 

make it difficult or cost-prohibiti ve to use foreign receivables as collateral for loans. Deprived of 

vital working capital, these U.S. companies are unable to grow and produce more U.S. jobs. 

The Convention addresses this problem head-on by extending established and effective 

principles of American law embodied in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code to every 

country that adopts the Convention. 

U.S. ratification of the Convention would not change U.S. law in any material respect 

because U.S. law already reflects the modem legal principles embodied in the Convention. 

However, we strongly believe that U.S. ratification of the Convention would be the catalyst that 

prompts ratification by other countries. As more countries ratify the Convention, it will become 

easier for U.S. lenders to accommodate the financing needs of U.S. small and medium-sized 
26 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CoalitionOne-2.eps

businesses, thereby enabling them to compete more vigorously in the international marketplace 

and foster the growth of American jobs. 

Given the significant benefits of ratifying the Convention, its broad-based support, and 

absence of any impact on existing U.S. law or cost of implementation, we st·rongly urge you to 

move forward quickly with its ratification. 

Sincerely, 

BAFT (Bankers Association for Trade and Finance) 

Commercial Finance Association 

Equipment Leasing and Finance Association 

Financial Services Roundtable 

Intemational Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. 

National Foreign Trade Council 

National Law Center for h1ter·American Free Trade 

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council 

U.S. Chamber of Conuuerce 

U.S. Council for International Business 

cc: Members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 
27 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CoalitionTwo-1.eps

The Honorable Bob Corker 

Chairman 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Richard Shelby 

Chairman 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 205 10 

AprilS, 2016 

The Honorable Ben Cardin 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 205 10 

The Honorable Sherrod Brown 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Support for Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in Intem ational T.-adc 

Dear Chainnan Corker, Chai.nnan Shelby, Ranking Member Cardin, and Ranking Member 

Brown: 

The undersigned trade associations, which represent businesses that encompass all 

sectors of the U.S. economy and employ millions of people, strongly support and endorse the 

Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade1 (the Convention) and 

respectfully ask that you move expeditiously towards its ratification. We believe the American 

economy would benefit from enactment of the Convention into law by making it easier for U.S. 

small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) to access additional financing from lenders based on 

their sales of goods and services to customers located in other countries that ratify the 

Convention. 

Simply put, the Convention would pem1it SMEs to access additional financing that is not 

currently available to them by making it significantly easier for U.S. companies to obtain assetbased financing in which their foreign receivables serve as collateral. 

The Convention is self-executing, meaning that no state or federal legislation is needed. 

Thus, there is no cost to the U.S. govcnuncot or taxpayers in ratifying the Convention. Expens 

from the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws participated fully in the 

formulation of the Convention and have detennined that there would be no implementation 

issues in ratifying the Convention. 

U.S. SMEs often obtain vitally needed financing by using their receivables as collateral 

for loans and other forms of financing. lo the United States, Anicle 9 of the Unifonu 

1 A copy of the Cooveolioo is available a1 hllps:/fwww.coogress.gov/trea!V-<Iocumenl/1 141h-congress/7/documeUItext. 
28 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CoalitionTwo-2.eps

Commercial Code makes this type of fmancing uncomplicated and readily available when the 

receivables are owed by customers located in the United States. However, U.S. lenders often are 

unable or unwilling to extend credit to U.S. companies seeking to borrow against their 

receivables owing by customers in other countries, because the laws in many foreign countries 

make it difficult or cost-prohibitive to use foreign receivables as collateral for loans. Deprived of 

vital working capital, these U.S. companies are unable to grow and produce more U.S. jobs. 

The Convention addresses this problem head-on by extending, to every country that 

adopts the Convention, established and effective principles of American law embodied in Article 

9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. 

U.S. ratification of the Convention would not change U.S. law in any material respect 

because U.S. law already reflects the modem legal principles embodied in the Convention. 

However, we strongly believe that U.S. ratification of the Convention would be the catalyst that 

prompts ratification by other countries. As more countries ratify the Convention, it will become 

easier for U.S. lenders to accommodate the financing needs of U.S. SMEs, thereby enabling U.S. 

SMEs to compete more vigorously in the international marketplace and foster the growth of jobs 

that our country needs. 

Given the significant benefits of ratifying the Convention, its broad-based support, and 

absence of any impact on existing U.S. law or cost of implementation, we strongly urge you to 

move forward quickly with its ratification. The undersigned members would be happy to discuss 

the importance of ratifying the Convention at your convenience. 

Sincerely, 

BAFT (Bankers Association for Trade and Finance) 

Commercial Finance Association 

Equipment Leasing and Finance Association 

Financial Services Roundtable 

International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. 

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council 

U.S. Chamber of Commerc-e 

U.S. Council for International Business 

cc: Members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

Members of the Senate Conun ittee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
29 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


ULC-1.eps

Uniform Law Commission 

111 N. WabeshAve. 

Suite 1010 

Chicago, L60602 (3 4~191 

(312) 450-6601 fax 

www.unifocmla'ws.org NAT10NAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS 

OFfteUS 

ACKo\AO t CAS$1)Y ... _. 

... _ .. P080111 1124 

vr o:w02 

J.E;LIS$AHOA"tl,U.H 

--Mrne!lcltt

~c.ot~

t!OI.M OI'

Aoom231 

~ 

tOO Or. RI!W. Ml.KJt, llf,id. 

SlPIIIA,MN:I(It55 

""'"'"""""' -•m flMl -.e SllenNnOilki.CA 91403 

lli()MA.1J 81Jft'EWOO TleaSLt'W 

3025 9t SU.I20 

N'lltNTitJI,MI 4o8 108 

EXECUTIW COMMm'EE 

ANITA RAI.IASASTA'V 

-..... 

fWer1iiiY

d .... 

<JIW~ 

WAWIH.GII!'S I.,b35XI20 

5eai:De: WA98 ~ 

JNOlHYOCRG 

23!U E. ~Aci .. SI.de600 

~AZe50 f 

W'I.Lw.I H. Ii~Nl 

TtuS A&M $C7IOCIIOfl,.lMI' I!I !I CCwmer~SL 

FCWIWOI!h,TX 7610Q: 

AOC)N(;YW SATTEAYM'I'l; 

....... .,...,"'"'""'""' 44UIOIII'ICIOCUI 

500 N lCnlneSt.SUie90t Md;lrlei, TX 19701 

"""""'""'"" ~,..,~~ 

Ont ~PI. 

SlPIIIA,MNMI<I2 

CAAL H I,I$MAH 

CIM/f SI:ope;lno'~~ 

........ 

P080CIInt 

vr ~ 

RVAN LEONMO 

CIMII C.~~ 

tOO P¥111we. $ulle~ 

~Oiy Ot<73102 

5TAFF 

""'""""" ...._,_ 

~~Oig 

Q.~COflOH MI..RflKY 

----

KAT-I;AOI)H$0N ·· ~~ 

- .. UNIFOftlll LAW FOUNDATION 

HIONI>RDJ.SWIJEL CIM/f, UlFTiu$!ee$ 

120$ Rf¥eflldeF'I;It.;I, Sulle1200 

"""""-' ..... 

March 24, 2016 

Honornble Robert Corker 

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations 

U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

423 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6225 

RE: Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Assignment of 

Receivables in International Trade 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

In my capacity as President of the Uniform Law Commission (also known as 

the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws), I am 

writing to support Senate review and approval of the United Nations 

Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade (the 

"Convention"). The Convention was transmitted to the Senate for advice and 

consent by the President on February I 0, 2016. 

The Uniform Law Commission was founded in 1892 to provide non-partisan, 

well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to 

critical areas of state statutory law. Commissioners are practicing lawyers, 

judges, legislators and legislative staiT and law professors, who have been 

appointed by state and territorial governments to research, draft and promote 

enactment of uniform state laws in areas of state law where uniformity is 

desirable and practical. While best known for our work with the Uniform 

Commercial Code (the "UCC"), over the past century the U LC has provided its 

member jurisdictions with important statutory advances in such areas as probate 

and trust and estates law, business entity law, family law, and interstate and 

international recognition and enforcement statutes. 

The Convention provides stable and uniform rules, consistent with U.S. law 

embodied in Article 9 of the UCC, for the perfection and priority of security 

interests in foreign receivables and for the rights of the foreign customers. It 

facilitates asset-based lending, facloring, securitization and project finance by 

permitting, in countries where such practices arc not currently allowed, the 

assignment of receivables in bulk, the assignment of future receivables, the 

securing of future advances by existing and future receivables, and in some 

circumstances an automatic right of the assignee to payments on the receivables 

in cross-border transactions. It also centralizes the choice of law rule that 

applies to any question of priorities among competing claimants of the assigned 

receivables, thus eliminating the need to insure priorities under the laws of 

multiple countries whose laws might conceivably apply. 
30 

Æ 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


ULC-2.eps