Ubbhnoall‘xuu '1 'f' b 7Z Ll“ é Authority y 0 ME Authorit A DAJA-IA DAJA-IA 0 EU February 1978 y 1978 22 Februar i MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD RECORD DUM FOR MEMORAN SUBJECT SUBJECT al the to Brussels Meeting of of NATO NATO Legal Legal Experts Experts to the Politic Political s Meeting Brussel dor in General A meeting meeting was was held held at at 0945 0945 on on 31 31 January January 1978 1978 in Ambassa Ambassador A 11 General U S the of ntation of the U S at Aldrich's office The subj'ect subject was Mr Mr Self's Solf's represe representation at The 's office Aldrich been had meeting The ee Committ al Politic NATO the Brussels Conference of the NATO Political Committee The meeting had been the of nce the Brussel s Confere views State of ent Departm on e guidanc general requested by Mr Solf Solf so so that that general guidance on Department of State views ed by request Solf Aldrich n to would be be availab available Attending in additio addition to Mr Mr Aldrich and and r Mr Solf ng in le Attendi would JAG AF forris Colonel L PH n Matheso Hike ACDA Iazeau Margot were A s DAJA-I International Law and Captain Captain Cumming Cummings DAJA—IA and tional Law Interna --- -2 - - Time tive item substan of Ratific Ratification The first first substantive item on on the the agenda agenda was was ation The 2 Time of within ation coordin on note draft U K the whet er the U S support the U K draft note on coordination within support should S U the whet er vie ed the tion Mr the ltllianc lliance as time of of ratification Mr Aldric11 Aldrich express expressed the view ratifica to time e as the of tine the of n relatio close a of that despite the logical desirability of a close relation of the time of ility that despite the logical desirab any e preclud would reality al reality would preclude any politic ratification between member member States States political tion between ratifica S the t ke it because true close timing This was especially true because it ight might take the U S lly especia was This timing close some other ls while sevefal several years years before before it it could could ratify ratify the the Protoco Protocols while some other unreali stic be woul It tely immedia untries could NATOgcountries could do do so almost immediately It would be unrealistic NATO co ars 1 any r fo tion ratifica e ratification for many yyears postpon es to countri to ask certain UATO NATO countries to postpone certain ask to clear it made lso Aldrich Mr d to Domestic law would would have have to to be be deferre deferred to Mr Aldrich also made it clear c law Domesti no that tive perspec the from tion ratifica that the U S would approach ratification from the perspective that no h approac that the U S would g S becomin the veto member of of the Allianc Alliance should be be given given a a veto pow r power over over the U U S becoming e should the member not will France t th a party to the Protoco ls It now appears rtain for become a party party at at least least for the the near near future future become were --- February 1978 uary 1978 Febr Committee Committ ee a Margot party to Mazeau the ACDA Protocols Mike It Matheson now appears L PM Colonel certain that Norris France AF will JAG not U S the what nda was the it 'm second 3 NATO Underst Understandings The second item on on the agenda was what the U S andings The NATO 3 al Politic NATO the by t d formul gs rstandin n should positio position should be be on on the the und understandings formulated by the NATO Political ed present issue the cally the issue presented Specifi Committee Articles 35 - 60 60 Protoco Protocoll I 1 Specifically s 35 ee Article Committ andiags was how the U S and other NATO countri es would express these underst 's Aldrich tion 1r ent oc such as by incorpo incorporating them in in the the instrum instrument of ratifica ratification Mr Aldrich‘s rating them as by such agree to es countri NATO the for was nt thing the basic positio position was that that the importa important thing was for the NATO countries to agree n was basic entation implem of method the for As andings underst thes of to the content of these understandings As for the method of implementation content to the U S the h For c legal 's domesti this would would depend depend on on each each country country's domestic legal approac approach For the U S this respect with are andings underst the based it depends in part part on on how how firmly firmly based the understandings are with respect in depends it are that Those are e sial they how or to their negotiating history or how controv controversial they are Those that are ting history negotia their to ent instrum the to added be could record tirg ne otia the in d not as well supported in the negotiating record could be added to the instrument not as well supporte u derthe e to ut ice es it instanc of ratification In ocher other instances it would would suffice to n ke make these under— t on In ratifica of y rn nual nilitar varjous he t 1n and standings clear in in th the report report to to the the Senate Senate and in the various military manuals s cJear standin 'NATO these h0vever 1 TO the L n 'L ols t tnt that arc are written tu to reflect the Pr0t Protocols On the wt-iole whole however these reilec that r1anner understandings should be be given given effect effect in in 1i-hato ve whateverr manner tnat that is is d eIT e 1 deemed andings shouid underst i te by appropriate by each country country appropr was how the U S and other NATO countries would express these understandings DECLASSIFIED DECLASSIFIED Authority Authority T V 1 Lffé ttJ 7 't“F 'f' DAJA-IA DAJA-IA SUBJECT SUBJECT February 1978 1978 Brussels Brussels Meeting Meeting of NATO Legal Experts to the Political February of NATO Legal Experts to the Political Committee I Committee L '·It Ii' N I 4 Other Understandings Understandings The next item on the agenda was whether the U S 4 Other The dext item on the agenda was whether the U should express a desire to have some coordination on understandings or should express a desire to have some coordination on understandings or reservations other other than those recommended in the NATO NATO study study The agreed agreed reservations than those recommended in the The was that that we we should should in‘part because because the the U S U S was was surprised surprised at at some some position was injpart of the U K U K statements It was was also also agreed agreed that the U U S of the statements It that the S should express express some some mild mild surprise surprise at at the U K U K understandings on on Articles Articles should the understandings and 96 96 Mr Aldrich and Mr Solf indicated that they were unhappy with 11 and Mr Aldrich and Mr Solf indicated that they were unhappy with the broad U K understanding on the meaning of armed conflict in Article the broad U K understanding on the meaning of armed conflict in Article 1 but agreed agreed that that this this understanding was was desirable desirable or or valuable valuable if if limited limited 1 to paragraph of Article 1 This could be conveyed to the U K As for to paragraph 4A of Article 1 This could be conveyed to the U K As for the understanding understanding on on recognition recognition of of wars wars of of national national liberation Article 96 the liberation Article 96 Mr Aldrich indicated that he was was surprised but would not have opposed it Mr Aldrich indicated that he surprised but would not have opposed it Indeed he he preferred preferred this narrow narrow view view of of Articles Articles 1 1 and and 96 96 On the the U K U K Indeed pn understanding on on Rhodesia Rhodesia the agreed view view was was that that this was was not not a NATO issue issue understanding the agreed and it should be treated as strictly British British problem problem The Alliance Alliance as and it should be treated as aa strictly The as such should should not not commit itself on on it such commit itself it 5 Regrisals The reprisals reprisals issue was was one one which which Mr Mr Aldrich indicated should 5 Reprisals The issue Aldrich indicated shoul l not be raised by the U S If another country raised it however we ought to not be raised by the U S If another country raised it however we ought to say that there is say that there is no no agreement agreement yet within the administration administration and that the yet within the and that the has been been deferred deferred for for the the time being Mr Aldrich Aldrich also also outlined outlined the the issue has time being Mr general general arguments arguments in in favor favor and and against a a reservation reservation on on reprisals reprisals and and indicated why why a a democratic democratic government government would would have have political political difficulty difficulty attaching attaching indicated a logically good from an operational standpoint reservation on reprisals a logically good from an operational standpoint reservation on reprisals 6 Review and and Analysis Analysis Mr Solf asked asked Mr Mr Aldrich Aldrich when when DOD DOD could could expect expect 6 Review Mr Solf State's response response on on the the Review Review and and'Analysis Mr Aldrich Aldrich indicated indicated in in State's Analysis Mr effect that it would would be be a a few few months months i e after the next next session of of the effect that it i e after the session the Law of of the Sea Conference Conference before he could study the Review and Analysis Law the Sea before he could study the Review and Analysis and that the the important important thing is is what what we we say say iin the report report on on the the Protocols Protocols and that thing n the to the Senate to the Senate 0 7 Imglementing Legislation Legislation Part of the meeting meeting was was devoted devoted to discussing discussing 7 Implementing Part of the to what implementing legislation legislation might might be be needed needed for the Protocols The only only what implementing for the Protocols The provisions provisions that that truly truly appear appear to require legislation legislation at at this this time time are are those those to in the Conventions Conventions and the Protocols Protocols on on grave grave breaches Various approaches to in the and the breaches Various approaches to legislation legislation were were discussed discussed in in addition addition to to some some of of the the reasons reasons favoring legislation The legislation The impression impression was was given that that implementing implementing legislation legislation could could postpone the becomes postpone the the time time that that the U S U S becomes bound bound by by the the Protocols Protocols - - DAJA-IA A-IA DAJ SUBJECT ECT SUBJ the Pol itic al erts to al Exp ting of February 1978 Bru Brussels Meeting of NATO NATO Leg Legal Experts to the Political ssel s Mee uary 1978 Febr Committee mitte e Com the cate d that eson indi Weanns Conference Messers Aldrich and Math Matheson indicated that the ich and sers Aldr fere nce Mes pons Con Wea that ting mee ory arat prep d sore in n up weapons issue will be taken up in a a UN UN spon Sponsored preparatory meeting that take be e will ons issu weap haps the emb er per Sept y earl to ust Aug late in va perhaps will be held in Geneva in late August to early September perhaps the Gene in perh aps will be held first two weeks of September 19i8 19f8 er firs t two weeks of Sept emb 8 8 ‘l urag e eral ly enco gen d not woul the 9 Follow up It was was agre agreed tha the U S U S would not generally encourage ed t t ow up It Foll 9 rvat ions The rese rstan ding s or future meetings to disc discuss individual understandings or reservations The vidu al unde uss indi re mee ting s to futu time the for gs ndin ersta und r othe for se hou ring POLADS could be used used as as a a clea clearinghouse for other understandings for the time d be DS coul POLA being i g bein ww U l CF f rich Ambassador Aldrich assador Ald Amb au Ms Margot Mazeau Maze got Ms Mar Mr Matheson eson Math Mr Mr Anderson 2 erso n 2 And Mr COL Bowd Bowden en COL COL Norris 3 ris 3 Nor COL hter man Capt Fruc Fruchterman Capt LTC Rob Roberson erso n LTC MAJ Park Parks s MAJ L I 3 DECLASSIFIED LASSIFIED ’ DEC Authority 4’ rity fHJ Autho 7 97 'i' b Lf‘fé ‘ -