-31-

[Y]

States fishing off our coasts must decide whether they
will cooperate with us in this effort, or whether, in the pursuit
of their own short-term economic interests, they will compel us
to seek other solutions less compatible with our mutual interest.

The world cannot afford to let the vital questions before the
Law of the Sea Conference be answered by default. This is one
of those rare occasions in history when the community of man has
met not to solve a crisis that has occurred, or to deal with the
aftermath of war, but to devise means of preventing conflict
yet in the future. It is a test of vision and will, and of statesmanship.

Preparatory discussions, bilateral and multilateral, are now
taking place for the next Conference session. The United States
is resolved to help conclude the Conference in 1976 -- before the
pressure of events and contention places international consensus
irretrievably beyond our grasp.

-32-

[Y]

Outer Space and the Law of Nations

The oceans are not the only area in which technology drives
mankind in directions only recently foreseen. No dimension of
our modern experience is more a source of wonder than the explora-
tion of space. Here, too, man's ability to extend his reach has
come up against national sensitivities and concerns for sovereignty.
Here the potential for law to anticipate and avert international
disputes is great--to substitute law for power in the formative
stage of this international activity.

In the nearly two decades since the first orbital earth
satellite, remarkable progress has been made in extending the
reach of law. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 placed outer space
beyond national sovereignty and banned the placing of weapons of
mass destruction in orbit around the earth. The treaty also
established the principle of sharing the benefits of space
exploration and use. Supplementary agreements have provided for
the registry of objects placed in space, for liability for

-33-

Y

damage caused by their return to earth, and for international
assistance to astronauts in emergencies. Efforts are underway
to develop further international law governing man's activities
on the moon and other celestial bodies.

Space technologies are directly relevant to our well-being
on earth. Earth-sensing satellites can make significant, perhaps
fundamental contributions to man's unending search for resources.
Information obtained by these satellites can dramatically enhance
the ability of nations to assess their resources and to develop
more wisely the potential of their land, their forests, and
their mineral deposits. The United States has urged in the
United Nations that such information be made freely and widely
available, for it is only through such sharing that the world
community as well as the space powers can benefit from this new
knowledge.

Direct broadcasting satellites have a great potential to
expand educational opportunities, to extend the scope of health
services, and to enhance the exchange of ideas. The United States

-34-

M

is already cooperating with developing countries as well as others
to learn how to apply this experimental technology in constructive
ways.

The transnational reach of these technologies naturally raises questions of consistency with traditional notions of sovereignty. Therefore the United States is committed to working with other members of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to develop principles governing their use. For our part, we recognize that the use of advanced communications satellites should be the subject of full consultation among the countries directly concerned; but we believe that exchange of ideas and opportunities for wider education must be promoted.

We believe that knowledge of the earth gained from space should be broadly shared among nations. The international community must consider the degree to which economic or cultural nationalism can stand in the way of valuable new discoveries about our planet and block the exchange of ideas. It has the opportunity to settle these questions by agreed rules for the benefit of all mankind.

-35-

Hijacking, Terrorism and War

The modern age has not only given us the benefits of
technology; it has also given us the new modern plagues of
aircraft hijacking, international terrorism, and new
techniques of warfare. They are rooted in the contemporary
problems of the political order; we will not soon eradicate
them. But the international community has a choice: it
can ignore these plagues and allow them to grow and disrupt
the normal activity and interests of nations, or it can
mobilize itself to reach multilateral agreements restricting
their harm considerably.

States already have an international legal obligation,
recognized by unanimous resolution of the UN General Assembly,
"to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or
participating in" or "acquiescing in" terrorist acts.

Treaties have been made to combat hijacking and attacks on
diplomats. The majority of states observe these rules;
only a minority do not. But events even in the last

-36-

few weeks dramatize the insufficiency of the present practice.

The United States believes that stronger international steps must be taken to deny skyjackers and terrorists a safe haven, to take actions against states which aid them or harbor them or fail to prosecute or extradite them. The United States in 1972 proposed to the UN a new international Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Certain Acts of International Terrorism, covering kidnapping, murder and other acts to spell out clearly the obligations of all states in this area.

The bonds of communications and technology on this shrinking planet enable the terrorist to carry out and publicize acts of terrorism in ways that were beyond reach a few decades ago.

But terrorism, like piracy, must be seen as outside the law. It discredits any political objective that it purports to serve, or any nations which encourage it.

-37-

Y

It is a challenge to the international community to organize
itself to display solidarity against it. If all nations
deny these criminals a safe haven, these practices will be
discouraged, just as the incidence of skyjacking has declined
as a result of important multilateral and bilateral agreements.
This is an opportunity for law and for statesmanship to defend
civilized life.

The struggle of law to restrain violence meets one of
its severest tests in the law of war. Historically,
nations have found it desirable to observe certain rules in
their conduct of war -- such as respect for the flag of
truce, the parole and exchange of prisoners, and the rights
of neutrality.

The scourge of war has roots deep in the political and
psychological existence of men. In our time, even more
awesome tools of warfare, together with the bitterness of
ideologies and civil warfare, and fragile bonds of social

[Y]

-38-

cohesion and moral restraint, threaten an even more brutal
dimension to human conflict.

Yet our century has also witnessed a universal effort
to ameliorate some of these evils by international agreements,
the most recent and comprehensive of which are the four
Geneva Conventions of 1949 on the Protection of War Victims.

But the law in action has been less impressive than
the law in the books, and its patent deficiencies in imple-
mentation and complicance cannot be ignored.

Two issues are now of paramount concern: First,
greater protection for civilians, and those imprisoned,
missing and wounded in war. And, second, the application
of international standards of humane conduct in civil wars,
that is, armed conflict within the territory of a single
country.

The United States is committed to the principle that
certain fundamental human rights require legal protection

-39-

M

under all circumstances; that some kinds of individual
suffering are intolerable no matter what threat may face
nations in conflict or at war. This view guides our policies
at the international conference now underway to supplement
the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the law of war. We will
continue to press for provisions which will make it difficult
for nations to bar a neutral country, or organization such
as the International Committee of the Red Cross, from
inspecting its treatment of prisoners. We strongly support
provisions requiring full accounting for the missing in
action, and immunity from attack for aircraft evacuating
the wounded in war. And we will seek agreement on a protocol
which demands humane conduct during civil war and bans
torture, summary execution, and the other terrible excesses
which may occur during civil strife.

These are issues which transcend claims of sovereignty
or internal security. They are of concern to peoples

-40-

everywhere, in conflicts everywhere -- in Indochina, in the
Middle East, in Latin America, in Asia and Africa, and in
Europe. The American people and government deeply believe
in these fundamental standards of humane conduct and
are committed to uphold and promote them.

-41-

Multinational Enterprises

Law reaches not only the oceans, outer space, the practices of
terrorism and war, but also our economic institutions. Here too
man's technical ingenuity creates new means -- and new problems
of social adjustment.

One of the most dynamic factors in the postwar growth of the
global economy has been the multinational enterprise. The massive
transfers of capital, technology, and managerial skills which these
institutions have facilitated have been an engine of economic growth
for both the industrialized countries where they were spawned and
the developing countries where they conduct some of their operations. They
represent a natural evolution of economic organization. But they
have now reached the point where social decision must increasingly affect
their evolution. It is in the interest of all concerned that law,
not the exercise of raw economic power or political will, govern
their future.

-42-

Some nations feel that multinational enterprises influence.
their economies in ways unresponsive to their national priorities.

Others are concerned that these enterprises may evade national
taxation and regulation through use of facilities abroad. And
recent disclosure of improper financial relationships between
investors and government officials in several countries raise
fresh concerns.

But it is a fact of life that institutions such as these, and
private investment generally, are the most promising source of
investment funds for the economic progress of developing countries.

An international consensus on their proper role and respon-
sibilities would permit them to make their vital contribution to the
world economy, protect the legitimate interests of host governments,
and provide also that host countries meet their responsibilities

-43-

to the enterprises they invited within their borders. A multilateral
treaty laying down agreed legal rules for multinational enterprises
does not seem likely in the near future. However, the United States
believes the time is ripe for an agreed statement of basic principles.

We are now actively discussing such guidelines, and we will

support the relevant work of the UN Commission on Transnational Enterprises.

We believe that such statements of principle must:

- call upon multinationals to take account of national priorities, act in accordance with local law, and employ fair labor practices;

- be consonant with existing principles of international law governing the treatment of foreigners and their property rights;

- cover all multinationals, state-owned as well as private;

- not discriminate in favor of host country enterprises which compete with multinationals except under specifically limited circumstances.

-44-

-- set forth not only multinationals' obligations, but
also the host country's obligations to treat multinationals
equitably and in accordance with international law;

-- acknowledge governments' responsibility to apply
recognized conflict-of-laws principles in reconciling
regulations applied by various host nations.

If these institutions become an object of economic warfare,
it will be an ill omen for the global economic system. We believe
that human ingenuity, common sense and legal standards can give
us fair solutions to the issues raised by multinational enterprises.
We believe that their continued operation, under accepted rules,
is above all in the interest of the developing countries. As the demanding
dimension of economic issues become a major concern of
international relations, the capacity of nations to address this
question constructively will be a test of whether different per-
spectives on economic issues can be accommodated.

-45-

[Y]

This is a challenge both to law and to statesmanship in every
country concerned. Multinationals can remain a dynamic force for
prosperity; we must give them the opportunity to promote progress
in ways that serve the common good.

## Conclusion

Since the early days of the Republic, driven by our growing
role in world commerce and seeking to perfect our new sovereignty,
Americans have seen that our nation's self-interest cannot be
separated from a just and progressive international legal order.

Our founding fathers were men of law, of wisdom, and of political
sophistication. The heritage they left us is a boon to us today, as
we face an expanding array of problems central to our national
well-being but which are also global problems that can only be
dealt with on a global scale.

-46-

The task of law in these issues is not simply to regulate
conduct but to help us fashion a new pattern of cooperative relations
among nations.

International relations no longer exist only in the dimension
of politics; they encompass our economic relations, ideological
principles, harnessing the reach of technology according to human
aims, and fostering the rights of men. An international order cannot
be constructed on power, but on restraints on power. Here is
the challenge to law.

But the ability of governments to manage all these issues
diminishes rapidly with the passage of time. Our preoccupation
with the confrontations of the present and the divisions of the past
distracts us from our vision of the future.

If confrontational politics and strident nationalism inhibit

-47-

broad international agreement, then those nations that can agree
will do so on a more limited scale; in the absence of any agreement,
nations will defend their rights unilaterally as they have in the past.
The stronger will survive, and may prosper, even in an environ-
ment of widening chaos.

But the American people have always had a higher hope --
that the modern community of nations will find within it the capacity
to act according to man's higher aspirations. This is a challenge
to us all.

As Felix Frankfurter
said, "fragile as reason is and limited as law is as the institution-
alized expression of reason, it is often all that stands between
us and the tyranny of will, the cruelty of unbridled, unprincipled,
undisciplined feeling."

-48-

The principles and procedures of the Anglo-American legal
system have proven their moral and practical worth. They have
promoted our national progress in the modern era and brought
its benefits to every citizen. They are a heritage and a trust
which we all -- not only lawyers -- hold in common. Yet
their greatest contribution to human progress may lie in the
future. For a chance now exists to link legal development and
political achievement, in the effort to build a new international
order. This is an opportunity for American leadership.

The philosopher Kant saw law and freedom, moral principle
and practical necessity, as parts of the same reality. He saw
law as the inescapable guide to political action. He saw the
realities of human interdependence as compelling our effort
to fulfill the imperatives of human aspiration.

-49-

The foreign policy of the United States has always served
practical and moral ends that reflect the ideals of the American
people. It is no accident that a dedication to international law
has always been a central feature of our foreign policy. And
so it is today, inescapably.

INTERNATIONAL LAW, WORLD ORDER

AND HUMAN PROGRESS

An Address by
The Honorable
Henry A. Kissinger
at the American Bar
Association
Montreal, Canada
August 11, 1975

I wonder if any of you has commented on the
tableau we present today: An American Secretary of
State addressing an assemblage of distinguished
American attorneys on American attitudes toward
international law--in a foreign country. That this
meeting could take place in Montreal, Canada with
no hint of the inappropriate, testifies to the
understanding, mutual respect and cooperation which
surround the vast network of interconnections be-
tween the United States and Canada to an extent
virtually without parallel among sovereign nations.

Our meeting here today is also witness to the
openness of Canadian society and to its respect for
open debate and honest difference. On several issues
I will discuss today, Canadian and American positions
are not identical, but the differences between us in
the realm of international law and cooperation run
detalled
only to specifics. The Canadian commitment to in-
ternational cooperation in all areas on a global
scale is second to none. The United States shares
this commitment and has welcomed the cooperation
of Canada as we work toward common goals. I wish
to acknowledge this kindred spirit as we benefit
from Canadian hospitality today.