```

[Senate Treaty Document 106-49]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress 
 2d Session                      SENATE                     Treaty Doc.
                                                                 106-49
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

 
    INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR SUPPRESSION OF FINANCING TERRORISM

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

   INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FINANCING OF 
 TERRORISM, ADOPTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON DECEMBER 
   9, 1999, AND SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON 
                            JANUARY 10, 2000

  October 12, 2000.--Convention was read the first time, and together 
  with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations and ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate.

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
089-118                     WASHINGTON : 2000

                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                 The White House, October 12, 2000.
To the Senate of the United States:
    With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the 
Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the International 
Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 
1999, and signed on behalf of the United States of America on 
January 10, 2000. The report of the Department of State with 
respect to the Convention is also transmitted for the 
information of the Senate.
    In recent years, the United States has increasingly focused 
world attention on the importance of combating terrorist 
financing as a means of choking off the resources that fuel 
international terrorism. While international terrorists do not 
generally seek financial gain as an end, they actively solicit 
and raise money and other resources to attract and retain 
adherents and to support their presence and activities both in 
the United States and abroad. The present Convention is aimed 
at cutting off the sustenance that these groups need to 
operate. This Convention provides, for the first time, and 
obligation that States Parties criminalize such conduct and 
establishes an international legal framework for cooperation 
among States Parties directed toward prevention of such 
financing and ensuring the prosecution and punishment of 
offenders, wherever found.
    Article 2 of the Convention states that any person commits 
an offense within the meaning of the Convention ``if that 
person by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and 
willfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that 
they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be 
used, in full or in part, in order to carry out'' either of two 
categories of terrorist acts defined in the Convention. The 
first category includes any act that constitutes an offense 
within the scope of and as defined in one of the 
counterterrorism treaties listed in the Annex to the 
Convention. The second category encompasses any other act 
intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, 
or to any other person not taking an active part in hostilities 
in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of the act, 
by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to 
compel a government or an international organization to do or 
to abstain from doing any act.
    The Convention imposes binding legal obligations upon 
States Parties either to submit for prosecution or to extradite 
any person within their jurisdiction who commits an offense as 
defined in Article 2 of the Convention, attempts to commit such 
an act, participates as an accomplice, organizes or directs 
others to commit such an offense, or in any other way 
contributes to the commission of an offense by a group of 
persons acting with a common purpose. A State Party is subject 
to these obligations without regard to the place where the 
alleged act covered by Article 2 took place.
    States Parties to the Convention will also be obligated to 
provide one another legal assistance in investigations or 
criminal or extradition proceedings brought in respect of the 
offenses set forth in Article 2.
    Legislation necessary to implement the Convention will be 
submitted to the Congress separately.
    This Convention is a critical new weapon in the campaign 
against the scourge of international terrorism. I hope that all 
countries will become Parties to this Convention at the 
earliest possible time. I recommend, therefore, that the Senate 
give early and favorable consideration to this Convention, 
subject to the understanding, declaration and reservation that 
are described in the accompanying report of the Department of 
State.

                                                William J. Clinton.
                          LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                       Department of State,
                                       Washington, October 3, 2000.
The President,
The White House.
    The President: I have the honor to submit to you, with a 
view to its transmission to the Senate for advice and consent 
to ratification, subject to the understandings, declaration and 
reservation set forth below, the International Convention for 
the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the 
United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1999, and signed 
on behalf of the United States of America on January 10, 2000 
(the ``Convention'').
    Pursuant to a French-led Group of Eight (``G-8'') 
initiative, with strong support and input from the United 
States, the United Nations General Assembly decided in 
Resolution 53/108 of a 8 December 1998 that the Ad Hoc 
Committee established by General Assembly Resolution 51/210 of 
17 December 1996 should elaborate an international convention 
for the suppression of terrorist financing to supplement the 
existing counterterrorism conventions. Basing its work on a 
draft text prepared by France, the United States, and other G-8 
members, the Ad Hoc Committee successfully negotiated the text 
during two drafting sessions in New York in March and 
September-October 1999, and recommended it to the Sixth (Legal) 
Committee for consideration. On November 18, 1999, the Sixth 
Committee, by consensus, recommended the draft Convention to 
the General Assembly for adoption. The Convention was adopted 
by the General Assembly, by consensus, on December 9, 1999.
    The Convention fills an important gap in international law 
by expanding the legal framework for international cooperation 
in the investigation, prosecution, and extradition of persons 
who engage in the financing of terrorism. By filling this gap, 
the Convention advances a critical counterterrorism priority of 
the United States which was articulated in your September 21, 
1998, address to the United Nations General Assembly when you 
called on all states to enhance their efforts to combat 
terrorist financing.
    The Convention provides for States Parties to exercise 
criminal jurisdiction over the unlawful and willful provision 
or collection of funds with the intention that they be used or 
in the knowledge that they are to be used in order to carry out 
certain terrorist acts as defined in the Convention. In 
creating such a legal regime, the Convention follows the 
precedents set by numerous terrorism conventions to which the 
United States is already a party, including the 1971 Convention 
for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of 
Civil Aviation, the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and 
Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, 
including Diplomatic Agents, the 1979 International Convention 
Against the Taking of Hostages, and the 1988 Convention for the 
Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime 
Navigation, with Related Protocol. Like these earlier 
Conventions, this new Convention requires States Parties to 
criminalize under their domestic laws certain types of criminal 
offenses, and also requires parties to extradite or submit for 
prosecution persons accused of committing or aiding in the 
commission of such offenses.
    Article 1 and 2 together serve to define the offenses 
covered by the Convention, with Article 1 incorporating several 
definitions of phrases used in Article 2. Article 1 includes a 
definition of ``funds,'' drawn from the definition of 
``property'' in the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, to which the United 
States is a party. Specifically, the definition of ``funds'' 
encompasses within its very broad scope ``assets of every kind, 
whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, however 
acquired, and legal documents or instruments in any form, 
including electronic or digital, evidencing title to, or 
interest in, such assets. * * *'' The definition was understood 
by all delegations to include property, and a list of 
illustrative examples incorporated at the end of the Article 
1.1 definition further conveys its breadth.
    Paragraph 1 of Article 2 states that any person commits an 
offense within the meaning of the Convention ``if that person 
by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully, 
provides or collects funds with the intention that they should 
be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full 
or in part, in order to carry out'' either of two categories of 
terrorist acts. The first category includes any act which 
constitutes an offense within the scope of and as defined in 
one of the treaties listed in the annex to the Convention. The 
second category is any other act intended to cause death or 
serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not 
taking an active part in hostilities in a situation of armed 
conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or 
context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a 
government or an international organization to do or to abstain 
from doing any act.
    With respect to the first category, the Convention annex 
lists nine counterterrorism conventions, ranging from the 1970 
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft 
to the 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of 
Terrorist Bombings (``Terrorist Bombings Convention''). The 
United States is a party to the first eight of the listed 
conventions and has signed and transmitted to the Senate for 
its advice and consent to ratification the Terrorist Bombings 
Convention (Treaty Document 106-6). Paragraph 2 of Article 2 
further provides that upon depositing its instrument of 
ratification, acceptance, approval or accession to the 
Convention, a state which is not a party to one of the 
conventions listed in the annex may declare that in the 
application of the Terrorist Financing Convention to that State 
Party, the convention at issue shall be deemed not to be 
included in the annex. Article 2.2(a) further provides that 
this declaration ceases to have effect as soon as that state 
becomes a party to the relevant convention, which fact must be 
notified to the depository. The United States should make such 
a declaration with respect to the Terrorist Bombings Convention 
if it is not a party to that Convention at the time of the 
deposit of its instrument of ratification with respect to the 
Terrorist Financing Convention. I therefore recommend that, in 
the event the United States is not a party to the Terrorist 
Bombings Convention at the time the United States deposits its 
instrument of ratification of the present Convention, that the 
following declaration to Article 2.2 be included in the United 
States instrument of ratification of the Convention:

          Pursuant to Article 2.2(a) of the Convention, the 
        United States of America declares that, in the 
        application of this Convention to the United States, 
        the International Convention for the Suppression of 
        Terrorist Bombings shall be deemed not to be included 
        in the annex referred to in paragraph 1, subparagraph 
        (a).

    In the event the United States is a party to the Terrorist 
Bombings Convention at the time it deposits its instrument of 
ratification to the Convention, such a declaration would not be 
deposited.
    The second category of terrorist acts under Article 2.1(b) 
incorporates language specifically suggested by the United 
States. The intent, which was broadly shared by other 
delegations, was to define the terrorist activity meant to be 
addressed by the Convention in a way that excluded the 
legitimate actions of the military forces of states by focusing 
on the intentional targeting of civilians as such. In order to 
ensure that the Convention encompassed the financing of attacks 
on off-duty military personnel, as in the cases of the 1996 Al 
Khobar Towers bombings in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and the 1983 
Beirut barracks bombings, the provision was expanded to also 
apply to attacks on ``any other person not taking an active 
part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict.'' The 
qualifier requiring that the purpose of the act be to 
``intimidate a population, or to compel a Government'' was 
intended and understood to eliminate mere ``ordinary crime'' 
from the scope of the Convention.
    Given the importance of protecting the flexibility of the 
United States to conduct legitimate activities against all 
lawful targets and consistent with the view taken by the United 
States in prior counterterrorism conventions as to their 
nonapplicability to the activities of state military forces in 
the exercise oftheir official duties, I recommend an 
Understanding to make it clear that nothing in the present Convention 
precludes States Parties from conducting legitimate activities against 
all lawful targets in accordance with the law of armed conflict. 
Further, because suspected offenders may seek to claim the benefit of 
the ``armed conflict'' exception in Article 2.1(b) to avoid extradition 
or prosecution under the Convention, it would be useful for the United 
States to articulate an Understanding regarding the scope of this 
exception. In this respect, an appropriate source of authority would be 
the widely accepted provision in Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Protocol 
II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August, 1949, concluded 
at Geneva on June 10, 1977, which President Reagan transmitted to the 
Senate on January 29, 1987, for advice and consent to ratification 
(Treaty Doc. 100-2). Specifically, protocol II states that ``armed 
conflict'' does not include ``internal disturbances and tensions, such 
as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a 
similar nature.'' I therefore recommend that the following 
understanding be included in the United States instrument of 
ratification of the Convention:

          The United States of America understands that nothing 
        in the present Convention precludes States Parties from 
        conducting legitimate activities against all lawful 
        targets in accordance with the law of armed conflict. 
        The United States further understands that the term 
        ``armed conflict'' in Article 2.1(b) does not include 
        internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, 
        isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts 
        of a similar nature.

    Paragraph 3 of Article 2 provides that for an act to 
constitute an offense under the Convention, it shall not be 
necessary that the funds were actually used to carry out one of 
the two categories of offenses referred to in paragraph 1(a) or 
(b). Paragraph 4 of Article 2 provides a person also commits an 
offense if that person attempts to commit an offense as set 
forth in paragraph 1. Paragraph 5 provides further that any 
person commits an offense if that person participates as an 
accomplice in an offense under paragraphs 1 or 4, organizes or 
directs others to commit such an offense, or in any other way 
intentionally contributes to the commission of one or more such 
offenses by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. 
These ancillary offenses in paragraph 3 are more comprehensive 
than those included in the earlier counterterrorism conventions 
to which the United States is a party, and it is anticipated 
that they will strengthen the ability of the international 
community to investigate, prosecute and extradite those who 
conspire or otherwise contribute to the commission of offenses 
defined in the Convention.
    Article 3 makes most of the Convention's provisions 
inapplicable to acts of terrorist financing that lack an 
international aspect. In generally limiting its scope of 
application to those cases involving elements from more than 
one state, the Convention follows the precedent set by the 
prior counterterrorism conventions to which the United States 
is a party such as the 1971 Convention for the Suppression of 
Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation and the 1979 
Convention Against the Taking of Hostages.
    Article 4 requires States Parties to make the offenses 
enumerated in Article 2 criminal offenses punishable under 
their domestic laws by appropriate penalties that take into 
account their grave nature.
    Article 5 provides that States Parties, in accordance with 
their domestic legal principles, shall take the necessary 
measures to enable a legal entity located in their territory or 
organized under their laws to be held liable when a person 
responsible for the management or control of that legal entity 
has, in that capacity, committed an offense set forth in 
Article 2. Such liability may be criminal, civil, or 
administrative and is without prejudice to the criminal 
liability of individuals having committed the offenses. This 
provision is particularly important in the context of terrorist 
financing where banks and other financial institutions may be 
intentionally misused by their senior officers to facilitate 
acts of terrorist financing.
    Article 6 requires States Parties to adopt such measures as 
may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope 
of the Convention are not justifiable by considerations of a 
political, philosophical,ideological, racial, ethnic, religious 
or other similar nature.
    Under Article 7, each State Party must establish its 
jurisdiction over the offenses set forth in Article 2 when the 
offense is committed: (1) in its territory; (2) on board a 
vessel flying its flag or an aircraft registered under its laws 
at the time the offense is committed; or (3) by a national of 
that State. Each State Part has discretion to establish 
jurisdiction over offenses set forth in Article 2 where the 
offense was directed towards or resulted in the carrying out of 
one of the two categories of terrorist acts referred to in 
Article 2.1(a) or (b): in the territory of that State; against 
national of that State; against a State or government facility 
of that State abroad, including diplomatic or consular premises 
of that State; or committed in an attempt to compel that State 
to do or abstain from doing any act. Each State Party also has 
the discretion to establish jurisdiction over offenses set 
forth in Article 2 where the offense is committed either by a 
stateless person who has his or her habitual residence in the 
territory of that State or on board an aircraft which is 
operated by the Government of that State. Upon becoming a party 
to the Convention, a State must notify the United Nations 
Secretary-General of the jurisdiction it has established under 
its domestic law in accordance with paragraph 2. Moreover, any 
changes to this jurisdiction must be immediately notified to 
the Secretary-General.
    Thus, under the terms of Article 7, States Parties may 
enact a broad array of jurisdictional bases over the offenses 
enumerated in Article 2. Of significant interest and value to 
the United States, which has many government facilities outside 
of its territory, is the Convention's recognition of 
jurisdiction over the financing of terrorist attacks against a 
State or government facility of that State abroad, including an 
embassy or consular premises of that State. This would give the 
United States universally recognized jurisdiction based on this 
Convention, for example, to prosecute in U.S. courts the 
financiers of attacks on all U.S. Government facilities abroad, 
including diplomatic and consular premises such as those 
attacked in 1998 in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as U.S. 
military installations such as those attacked in the 1996 Al-
Khobar Towers bombing in Dhahrden, Saudi Arabia. Also of 
significant interest and value to the United States is the 
provision in Article 7 providing that States Parties may 
criminalize conduct where the offense being financed is 
committed in an attempt to compel that State to do or abstain 
from doing any act. This provides jurisdiction for offenses 
under this Convention where terrorists seek to coerce State 
action, even where a national or facility of that State is not 
the target of the attack.
    In addition to the bases for jurisdiction set forth in 
paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 7, paragraph 4 of Article 7 
requires jurisdiction to be established by a State Party over 
the offenses set forth in Article 2 where the alleged offender 
is present in its territory and is not extradited to any of the 
State Parties that have established their jurisdiction in 
accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2. In the event that more than 
one State Party claims jurisdiction over offenses set forth in 
Article 2, the Convention provides that they must strive to 
coordinate their actions appropriately. The Convention also 
provides that without prejudice to the norms of general 
international law, it does not exclude the exercise of any 
criminal jurisdiction established by a State Party in 
accordance with its domestic law.
    Article 8 provides that each State Party shall take 
appropriate measures, in accordance with its domestic legal 
principles, to identify, detect and freeze, or seize any funds 
used or allocated for the purpose of committing the offenses 
set forth in Article 2, as well as the proceeds derived from 
such offenses, for purposes of possible forfeiture. Further, 
each State Party concerned may consider concluding agreements 
on the sharing with other States Parties, on a regular or case-
by-case basis, of the funds derived from the forfeitures 
referred to in this Article. The Article also provides that its 
provisions are to be implemented withoutprejudice to the rights 
of third parties acting in good faith.
    Article 9 includes certain provisions relating to offenders 
or alleged offenders detained for the purpose of extradition or 
prosecution. This article, like the Convention as a whole as 
well as other similar counterterrorism conventions, is not 
intended to create individual rights of action.
    In a provision of crucial importance for the Convention, 
Paragraph 1 of Article 10 declares that a State Party which 
does not extradite an alleged offender found in its territory 
shall ``without exception whatsoever and whether or not the 
offense was committed in its territory'' submit the case to its 
competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, through 
proceedings in accordance with the laws of that State. Those 
authorities are obligated to take their decision in the same 
manner as in the case of any other offense of a grave nature 
under the law of that State.
    In an innovation over the prior counterterrorism 
conventions to which the United States is a party, this 
Convention includes a provision in paragraph 2 of Article 10 
(first proposed by the United States in the Terrorist Bombings 
Convention) to the effect that the obligation in paragraph 1 to 
extradite or submit for prosecution can be discharged by the 
temporary transfer of nationals for trial by those States 
Parties that could not otherwise extradite their nationals, 
provided both the Requesting and Requested States agree. This 
provision on temporary transfer of nationals for trial is a 
useful recognition of this practice by the international 
community in a binding multilateral legal instrument.
    Paragraph 1 of Article 11 amends existing extradition 
treaties to include the offenses defined in Article 2 as 
extraditable offenses and paragraph 3 provides that they shall 
be extraditable offenses between States Parties which do not 
make extradite conditional on an extradition treaty.
    Article 12 establishes general mutual legal assistance 
obligations between States Parties in connection with 
investigations or criminal or extradition proceedings brought 
in respect of the offenses in Article 2. In an innovation over 
prior counterterrorism conventions, the Convention in paragraph 
2 provides that States Parties may not refuse a request for 
mutual legal assistance on the ground of bank secrecy.
    Article 13 in a related innovation over prior 
counterterrorism conventions provides that none of the offenses 
set forth in Article 2 shall be regarded, for the purposes of 
extradition or mutual legal assistance, as a fiscal offense 
and, accordingly, States Parties may not refuse a request for 
such assistance on the sole ground that it concerns a fiscal 
offense.
    Article 14 provides that none of the offenses set forth in 
Article 2 shall be regarded, for the purposes of extradition or 
mutual legal assistance, as a political offense or as an 
offense connected with a political offense, or as an offense 
inspired by political motives. Accordingly, a request for 
extradition or mutual legal assistance may not be refused 
solely on such grounds. This Article provides a useful 
narrowing of the political offense exception in such cases. In 
many modern United States bilateral extradition treaties there 
are already provisions which bar application of the political 
offense exception to extradition with respect to offenses 
covered under multilateral conventions to which ``prosecute or 
extradite'' obligations apply. The 1998 Terrorist Bombings 
Convention was the first U.N. counterterrorism instrument to 
similarly limit the political offense exception. This provision 
builds on this trend by making the restriction on the 
invocation of the political offense exception for requests 
based on offenses under Article 2 a matter of general 
application rather than dependent on the terms of individual 
bilateral law enforcement treaties between the States Parties.
    Article 15 provides that nothing in the Convention shall be 
interpreted as imposing an obligation to extradite or to afford 
mutual legal assistance if the requested State Party has 
substantial grounds for believing that the request for 
extradition for offenses set forth in Article 2 or for mutual 
legal assistance with respect to such offenses has been made 
for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on 
accountof that person's race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or 
political opinion or that compliance with the request would cause 
prejudice to that person's position for any of these reasons. This 
Article is similar to provisions already included in a number of U.N. 
counterterrorism treaties.
    Article 16 provides and establishes various conditions for 
the temporary transfer to one State Party, for purposes of 
assistance under the Convention, of a person in custody in 
another State Party, provided that the person in question 
consents and the competent authorities of both States Parties 
agree. This provision was also included at the suggestion of 
the United States in the Terrorist Bombings Convention and is 
similar to provisions found in virtually all of the bilateral 
mutual legal assistance treaties to which the United States is 
a party.
    Article 17 discusses the rights of persons taken into 
custody or regarding whom any other measures are taken or 
proceedings are carried out pursuant to this Convention.
    Article 18 states that States Parties shall cooperate in 
the prevention of offenses set forth in Article 2 by taking all 
practicable measures to prevent and counter preparations in 
their respective territories for the commission of those 
offenses within or outside their territories. The Article 
provides that States parties shall consider, inter alia a 
series of financial including efforts by financial institutions 
to identify unusual or suspicious transactions and to report 
transactions suspected of stemming from criminal activity.
    Article 19 contains a requirement to notify the United 
Nations Secretary-General of the final outcome of criminal 
proceedings relating to alleged offenders under the Convention. 
Article 20 states that States Parties shall carry out their 
obligations under the Convention in a manner consistent with 
the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity 
of states and that of non intervention in the domestic affairs 
of other states. Article 21 provides that nothing in the 
Convention shall affect other rights, obligations and 
responsibilities of states and individuals under international 
law.
    Article 22 provides that nothing in the Convention entitles 
a State Party to undertake in the territory of another State 
Party the exercise of jurisdiction and performance of functions 
which are exclusively reserved for the authorities of that 
other State Party by its domestic law.
    Article 23 relates to the first category of offenses 
described in Article 2.1(a). It establishes a mechanism for 
expanding the scope of the Convention by adding new conventions 
to the Annex. The Annex may be amended by the addition of 
relevant treaties that: are open to participation by all 
States; have entered into force; and have been ratified, 
accepted, approved or acceded to by at least 22 States Parties 
to the Convention. Any State Party may propose such an 
amendment, and each amendment, shall be deemed adopted unless 
one third of the States Parties object to it in writing not 
later than 180 days after its circulation. Adopted amendments 
to the Annex shall enter into force 30 days after the deposit 
of the twenty-second instrument of ratification, acceptance or 
approval of such amendment for all those States Parties that 
have deposited such an instrument. Thereafter, the amendment 
shall enter into force for any other State Party on the 
thirtieth day after the deposit of its own instrument of 
ratification, acceptance or approval. This mechanism ensures 
both that the scope of the Convention can evolve to encompass 
the financing of additional terrorist activity, as may be 
agreed by the international community, and that the scope of 
the present Convention is not expanded with respect to a 
particular State Party without that State party's explicit 
agreement.
    Under this provision, the United States expects to deposit 
an instrument of acceptance of such an amendment if the treaty 
that is the subject of the amendment has entered into force for 
the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
Otherwise, any amendment that the United States proposes to 
accept would be submitted to the Senate for its advice and 
consent.
    Article 24.1 provides that disputes between two or more 
States Parties concerning the interpretation orapplication of 
the Convention that cannot be settled through negotiation within a 
reasonable time shall be submitted at the request of one of them to ad 
hoc arbitration, or, failing agreement on the organization of such 
arbitration, to the International Court of Justice. Article 24.2 
provides that a State may make a declaration excluding this dispute-
resolution obligation at the time of signature, ratification, 
acceptance, approval or accession. In October 1985, the United States 
withdrew its declaration under Article 36 of the Statute of the 
International Court of Justice accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of 
the Court. Consistent with that discussion, I recommend that the 
following reservation to Article 24.1 be included in the United States 
instrument of ratification:

          Pursuant to Article 24.2 of the Convention, the 
        United States of America declares that it does not 
        consider itself bound by Article 24.1, but reserves the 
        right specifically to agree in a particular case to 
        follow the arbitration procedure set forth in the 
        Convention or any other procedure for arbitration.

    This reservation would allow the United States to agree to 
an adjudication by a chamber of the Court in a particular case, 
if that were deemed desirable.
    As detailed in Article 26, the Convention will enter into 
force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the 
twenty-second instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval 
or accession. Pursuant to Article 27, a State Party to the 
Convention may denounce it by written notice to the United 
Nations Secretary-General. Denunciation will take effect one 
year from the date of receipt of the notification by the United 
States Secretary-General.
    Recommended legislation necessary to implement the 
Convention is being prepared for separate submission to the 
Congress.
    The Department of Justice joins in recommending that this 
Convention be transmitted to the Senate at an early date for 
its advice and consent to ratification, subject to the 
understanding, the declaration relating to Article 2, and the 
reservation to Article 24.1, previously described.
    Respectfully submitted,
                                                    Strobe Talbott.


```