[Senate Executive Report 110-28]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress Exec. Rept.
SENATE
2d Session 110-28
======================================================================
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONVENTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATION UNION
_______
September 23, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Dodd, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany Treaty Docs. 108-5, 109-11, and 110-16]
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which were referred
the amendments to the Constitution and the Convention of the
International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended
by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994), signed by the
United States at Minneapolis on November 6, 1998, and contained
in the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference
(Minneapolis 1998) (the ``1998 Amendment'') (Treaty Doc. 108-
5); amendments to the Constitution and the Convention of the
International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended
by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994) and the
Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998), signed by the
United States at Marrakesh on October 18, 2002, and contained
in the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh
2002) (the ``2002 Amendment'') (Treaty Doc. 109-11); and
amendments to the Constitution and the Convention of the
International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended
by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994), the
Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998), and the
Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh 2002), signed by the
United States at Antalya on November 24, 2006, and contained in
the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Antalya 2006)
(the ``2006 Amendment'') (Treaty Doc. 110-16), having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon subject to
declarations and reservations, as indicated in the resolutions
of advice and consent for each treaty, and recommends the
Senate give its advice and consent to ratification thereof, as
set forth in this report and the accompanying resolutions of
advice and consent.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose..........................................................2
II. Background.......................................................2
III. Major Provisions.................................................4
IV. Entry Into Force................................................12
V. Implementing Legislation........................................12
VI. Committee Action................................................12
VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments...........................12
VIII.Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification................20
I. Purpose
These three sets of amendments to the Constitution and the
Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (the
``ITU'') are generally designed to: (1) facilitate further
private-sector involvement in the organization; (2) improve the
efficiency, flexibility, and effectiveness of the ITU as a
functioning organization; and (3) promote greater fiscal
stability and transparency at the ITU.
II. Background
The International Telecommunication Union (the ``ITU''),
based in Geneva with a membership of 191 countries, is the
principal international organization in the area of information
and communication technologies, providing a forum for global
cooperation and coordination and the promotion of more
effective and efficient use of such technologies generally. The
ITU was founded in 1865. The original treaty was signed by 20
European countries\1\ approximately twenty years after the
first public message over a telegraph was sent between
Washington and Baltimore\2\ and called for common rules for
European telegraphy. Over the next few decades the periodic
conferences held by States that were parties to the original
treaty or the treaties that subsequently superseded the 1865
treaty along with a Secretariat that provided administrative
support, became known as the ``International Telegraph Union.''
On a parallel track, radio communication technology was
developing and in 1906, the first Radiotelegraph Conference was
convened to establish rules governing the international use of
radio. A Radiotelegraph Convention and Radiotelegraph
Regulations were adopted at the 1906 conference in Berlin. The
United States joined the Radiotelegraph Convention in 1912\3\
and also became a member of the International Telegraph Union
that same year.\4\ At a conference in 1932, it was decided to
combine the International Telegraph Convention and the
International Radiotelegraph Convention to form the
International Telecommunication Convention.\5\ The Conference
further decided that the name of the Union should be changed to
``International Telecommunication Union'' (the ``ITU'') in
order to reflect the full scope of the Union's
responsibilities, which by this time covered all forms of
wireline and wireless communication. Under an agreement with
the United Nations, the organization became a UN specialized
agency on October 15, 1947.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\130 Consolidated Treaty Series 198 (1864-1865) (French) (Clive
Parry ed., Oceana 1969). The original treaty, the International
Telegraph Convention, was signed on May 17, 1865 by the following
countries: France, Austria, The Grand Duchy of Baden, Bavaria, Belgium,
Denmark, Spain, Greece, Hamburg, Hanover, Italy, the Netherlands,
Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Saxe-Hildburghausen, Sweden-Norway,
Switzerland, Turkey, and Wurttemberg. It appears, however, that it was
not until 1868, in a new iteration of the 1865 treaty, that the
International Telegraph Union was founded, which was at the time known
as the ``Berne Bureau'' because it was located in Berne. See Leive,
International Telecommunications and International Law: The Regulation
of The Radio Spectrum 31-32 (Oceana 1970).
\2\See From Semaphore to Satellite 28 (International
Telecommunication Union 1965). The first public message over a
telegraph was sent between Washington and Baltimore by Samuel Finley
Breeze Morse (1791-1872), who developed the famous Morse code. Morse
had obtained $30,000 in 1843 for a telegraph line from Washington to
Baltimore, which was opened on January 1, 1945. Reportedly, the ``first
message sent by Morse was the phrase `What hath God wrought'.'' These
were apparently the same words that President Kennedy used in the first
telephone conversation over a SYNCOM satellite on August 23, 1963.
Ibid.
\3\The United States signed the International Wireless Telegraph
Convention in 1906 (also known as the International Radiotelegraph
Convention), and after receiving the advice and consent of the Senate,
the President ratified that Convention in 1912. See Ex. A, 60-1. The
International Wireless Telegraph Convention was signed by many of the
same countries in Europe that had signed the International Telegraph
Convention of 1865, but also included Great Britain, Brazil, Uruguay,
Persia, and of course, the United States.
\4\On July 5, 1912, the United States signed the International
Radiotelegraph Convention, which was the latest iteration of the 1865
International Telegraph Convention. This Convention was submitted to
the Senate by President Taft on January 11, 1913. See Ex. A, 60-3. The
transmittal notes, among other things, that advances in the development
of radiotelegraphy had been ``greatly aided as a result of the
extremely efficient accomplishments of the radio section of the Berne
International Bureau of the Telegraphic Union.'' Id. at p. 52.
\5\The International Telecommunication Convention, Ex. B, 73-2, was
signed by the United States at Madrid on December 9, 1932, approved by
the Senate on May 1, 1934, and ratified by the President shortly
thereafter.
\6\Agreement between the United Nations and the International
Telecommunication Union, signed on April 26, 1949, 316 U.N.T.S. 175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, some 140 years after its creation, the fundamental
objectives of the ITU remain the same, but the scope of the
organization's mandate is much broader, commensurate with the
expansive development of telecommunication technologies over
the decades. The ITU provides a forum for global
telecommunication standardization activities; for the
international allocation, management, and use of spectrum,
including broadcasting, satellite sound broadcasting, mobile
satellite services, and space services; and, in the case of
developing countries, for the promotion and provision of
technical assistance in the area of telecommunications.
In 1992, the ITU underwent a major reorganization, which
was undertaken in response to significant changes and
developments in the telecommunications area. There are now two
treaties that provide the legal basis for the organization: the
ITU Constitution and Convention. The United States is a party
to both instruments, which contain complementary provisions.\7\
The ITU Constitution sets out overarching principles governing
the ITU's basic structure, purpose, and functions, while the
Convention provides greater detail regarding the functional and
procedural implementation of the broad structure set forth in
the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\The 1992 ITU Constitution and Convention, along with amendments
to both instruments concluded in 1994, were submitted to the Senate by
the President on September 13, 1996 (Treaty Doc. 104-34) and approved
by the Senate on October 23, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The top policy-making body of the ITU is the
Plenipotentiary Conference, which meets every four years and
consists of representatives of States that are party to the ITU
Constitution and Convention. The executive body of the ITU, the
ITU Council, meets annually and governs the organization in the
interim between Plenipotentiary Conferences. The Council is
composed of Member States elected by the Plenipotentiary
Conference; the United States currently has a seat on the
Council. The Council facilitates the implementation of the
Constitution, the Convention, Administrative Regulations
(International Telecommunications Regulations and Radio
Regulations), Plenipotentiary Conference decisions and, where
appropriate, decisions of other conferences and meetings of the
Union. The General Secretariat of the ITU, run by the
Secretary-General, is the administrative arm of the
organization. The work of the ITU is carried out within three
ITU sectors:
The Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R)
The Radiocommunication Sector's primary objective is to
manage the international radio-frequency spectrum and satellite
orbits, so as to maximize effective use of these resources
while minimizing interference in the operation of
radiocommunication systems. The Sector uses instruments such as
the Radio Regulations and regional agreements, which are
updated periodically, to implement its objective.
The Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T)
The Telecommunication Standardization Sector is responsible
for making recommendations regarding universal standards for
telecommunications. The World Telecommunication Standardization
Assembly meets every four years to define the general policy
for the Sector, establish study groups on that basis, and
approve the work expected to occur before the next Assembly.
The Telecommunication Development Sector (ITU-D)
The Telecommunication Development Sector is responsible for
generally assisting developing countries in developing
information and communication technologies, narrowing the
digital divide, and increasing the information flow to and from
developing countries.
III. Major Provisions
Detailed summaries of the 1998 Amendment, the 2002
Amendment, and the 2006 Amendment may be found in the relevant
Letters of Submittal from the Secretary of State to the
President, which are reprinted in full in Treaty Documents 108-
5, 109-11, and 110-16. As described above in Section I, these
amendments are generally designed to facilitate further
private-sector involvement in the ITU, improve the efficiency,
flexibility, and effectiveness of the ITU's functioning, and
promote greater fiscal stability and transparency at the ITU. A
brief description of key provisions of the amendments that
accomplish these objectives is set forth below.
A. FACILITATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT
Matching the remarkable developments in technology, private
sector participation in the field of telecommunications has
grown markedly over the past several decades. This growth is
nowhere more apparent than in the increased interest shown by
the private sector in assisting the ITU and Member States in
addressing the evolving international telecommunication
environment. Private entities can participate in the work of a
particular sector as a Sector Member or as an Associate. In an
effort to clarify the rights and obligations of these different
memberships, facilitate private sector participation, and
distinguish Sector Members from Member States, the 1998
Amendment amended Article 3 of the Constitution and Article 19
of the Convention so as to clearly define the roles of private
sector participants in the work of the ITU. Specifically,
Sector Members are generally entitled to participate fully in
the activities of the Sector of which they are members, while
Associates are admitted by the Assembly or Conference of a
Sector to participate in the work of a particular study group
or subgroup of the Sector. In general, Sector Members have
greater rights and obligations than Associates and pay more for
their membership.\8\ To date, there are 568 Sector Members and
153 Associates.\9\ In response to questions from the committee
regarding the role and importance of Sector Members and
Associates in the work of the ITU, Senior Deputy U.S.
Coordinator Richard Beaird responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\For the years 2006-2007, a contributory unit is valued at 63,600
Swiss Francs for Sector Members, while a contributory unit for
Associates has been fixed at 10,600 Swiss Francs for the ITU
Radiocommunication Sector and ITU Telecommunication Standardization
Sector, 3,975 Swiss Francs for the ITU Telecommunication Development
Sector and 1,987.50 Swiss Francs for Associates from developing
countries participating in the ITU Telecommunication Development
Sector.
\9\There is a publicly available list of Sector Members on the
ITU's website at http://itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/
mm.list?_search==SEC&--languageid=1 and Associates at http://
www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/
mm.list?_search=ASSOCIATES&_languageid=1.
Sector Members have an important role to play in all
three ITU Sectors, but their participation relative to
that of Member States varies from Sector to Sector. In
the [Telecommunication Standardization Sector], since
national networks have been privatized, Member States
generally no longer engage in technical work (with some
exceptions where there are national interests at stake,
such as priority of communications in times of national
disasters and emergencies, or identity management).
Consequently, Sector Members are largely responsible
for preparing technical contributions for
telecommunications standards. In the
[Radiocommunication Sector], both Sector Members and
Member States have major stakes in obtaining and
protecting radio spectrum. In the [Telecommunication
Development Sector], with some notable exceptions, the
private sector has historically been much less
involved. This may be because the business case for
assisting developing countries is much less obvious
than the need to obtain spectrum for a new service (in
the [Radiocommunication Sector]), or to establish an
international standard for telecommunications equipment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(in the [Telecommunication Standardization Sector]).
* * * * * * *
Associates [also] play an important role in the ITU
standards development process. Creation of an Associate
category has increased private sector participation in
the ITU and brought into the ITU process entities with
specialized expertise in particular fields of
telecommunications. The private sector has benefited
from the Associate category because it has allowed
entities that have expertise in a particular
telecommunications subject to participate in that part
of the work of the ITU that is of interest to them, at
a lower rate than they would have to pay as Sector
Members.
The 1998 Amendment amended several other articles of the
Constitution and Convention in order to further facilitate
private sector participation in the ITU. For example, Article
20 of the Convention was amended to provide that a Sector,
through its Bureau Director, may invite participation in a
specified matter by organizations that do not generally
participate in the Sector. Article 3 of the Constitution was
amended to permit Sector Members to be chairs and vice chairs
of Sector assemblies and meetings, and World Telecommunication
Development Conferences. Additionally, Article 19 of the
Convention was amended to provide that private entities
applying for Sector Membership could, if their Member State had
authorized such a process, apply directly to the Secretary
General to become a Sector Member. In the Letter of Submittal
from the Secretary of State to the President, which is
reprinted in full in Treaty Document 108-5, it is noted that
``for domestic policy reasons [the United States] will require
that U.S. private sector entities seeking to become Sector
Members apply for such membership through current procedures,
which require the direct involvement of the U.S.
government.''\10\ In response to questions from the committee,
Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator Richard Beaird further explained
that the ``U.S. has chosen to maintain minimal oversight over
which U.S. entities are allowed to apply for ITU membership for
a number of reasons'' including that the United States, ``which
has more Sector Members than any other country, wants to be
kept informed about what U.S. entities are participating in the
ITU.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Treaty Doc. 108-5 at p. VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2002 Amendment and the 2006 Amendment further
facilitate private sector involvement in the ITU, particularly
with respect to private sector participation in meetings. For
example, the 2002 Amendment amends Article 4 of the Convention
to allow Sector Members to be represented as observers at
meetings of the Council, its committees, and its working
groups, subject to conditions to be established by the Council.
The 2006 Amendment amends Article 4 of the Convention to
clarify that Sector Members may attend--and not merely be
represented at--meetings of the Council, its committees, and
its working groups, subject to certain conditions. The 2006
Amendment additionally amends Article 23 of the Convention to
clarify that observers of specified organizations, agencies,
and entities may participate in Plenipotentiary Conferences in
an advisory capacity; amends Article 24 of the Convention to
clarify that observers of certain organizations and agencies,
including international organizations, may participate in
radiocommunication conferences in an advisory capacity; and
amends Article 25 to clarify that observers from certain
organizations and agencies may participate in an advisory
capacity with respect to radiocommunication assemblies, world
telecommunication standardization assemblies, and
telecommunication development conferences.
Although the State Department has indicated that it views
private sector participation in the ITU's activities as
``crucial to the future success of the ITU,'' the Department
has also noted in testimony that ``if changes were made [to]
the ITU's procedural rules that resulted in Sector Members
gaining control over the ITU's processes, such changes would be
a concern because they could prevent Member States from
exercising their appropriate role as guardians of the public
interest and national security.'' The Executive Branch has
assured the committee in testimony that ``[n]o such changes are
currently envisioned.''
B. IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY, FLEXIBILITY, AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ITU
Working Methods
All three amendments to the ITU Convention attempt to
improve the working methods of the ITU. Specifically, the 1998
Amendment amends Article 20 of the Convention to explicitly
recognize the right of Sector Members to participate in the
adoption of questions to be studied in ITU study groups in
accordance with procedures established by the relevant
conference or assembly. The 1998 Amendment also amends Article
20 to permit a conference or assembly to adopt certain
recommendations that are discussed in a study group without the
formal consultation of Member States, so long as such
recommendations have no policy or regulatory implications.
These procedures allow the technical work of the ITU to proceed
more efficiently. In response to a question from the committee,
the Administration responded as follows regarding the utility
of these procedures:
Pursuant to Article 20 (in particular, paragraph CV
246-A and 246-D), Member States have established
procedures for both study Questions and Recommendations
to be adopted without formal consultation of the Member
States where there is no doubt that the Questions and
Recommendations involved lack policy or regulatory
implications. In the ITU Telecommunication
Standardization Sector, Questions may be adopted at
Study Group meetings where there is consensus. . . .
Recommendations may also be adopted without formal
Member State consultation pursuant to the streamlined
process set forth in ITU-T Recommendation A.8. Twenty-
two Questions were adopted during the 2004-2008 period
without formal Member State consultation.
In the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector,
most Recommendations are highly technical and do not
involve regulatory or policy issues, and are therefore
approved under the streamlined process, i.e., by the
Member States and Sector Members present at the Study
Group meeting without further formal consultation of
all Member States. In the period from 2004-2008, there
were 840 ITU-T Recommendations approved using this
process; a list of these can be provided if requested.
It is estimated that this constitutes over 90% of the
ITU-T's recommendations during this period. However,
even in these cases, Member States may call for a
formal Member State consultation process where they
believe policy or regulatory issues are involved.
To facilitate the work of the three sectors and provide for
greater flexibility, the 2002 Amendment amends the Constitution
by adding a provision that specifically recognizes the
authority of the Radiocommunication Assembly, the World
Telecommunication Standardization Assembly, and the World
Telecommunication Development Conference to establish and adopt
working methods and procedures for their respective sectors,
although they must be compatible with the Constitution,
Convention, and Administrative Regulations.\11\ The 2002
Amendment also amends Article 4 of the Convention to allow
Member States that are not members of the Council to
participate as observers at meetings of the Council, but
without the right to vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\See Chapter IVA of the Constitution as amended by the 1998
Amendment, Treaty Doc. 109-11 at p. 32. See also Articles 8(1bis),
13(1bis), and 16(1) of the Convention as amended by the 1998 Amendment,
Treaty Doc. 109-11 at pp. 54, 58, and 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2006 Amendment amends Article 5 of the Convention to
clarify that the Secretary-General of the ITU, the Deputy
Secretary-General, or a representative of the Secretary-General
may participate in ITU conferences or other ITU meetings in an
advisory, rather than a ``consultative'' capacity. In response
to questions from the committee, the Department of State
indicated that this amendment reflected a concern that the term
``consultative'' provided the Secretary-General with too strong
of a role in the decision-making process of the organization
and thus the term was replaced with ``advisory,'' which is
intended to indicate ``that the Secretary-General and other ITU
officials provide advice to the Member States but Member States
need not consult them.'' Article 16 of the Convention is
amended by the 2006 Amendment to provide that the world
telecommunication development conferences may maintain,
terminate, or establish study groups and allocate to them
matters to be studied. In addition, the provision in the
Convention relating to the functions of the Telecommunication
Development Advisory Group (Article 17A) is amended to state
that this Group shall act through the Director of the
Telecommunication Development Bureau, thereby providing more
direct control by the Director over the activities of the
Telecommunication Development Advisory Group.
Scheduling of Meetings
Amendments were made to the Constitution in order to
provide for greater flexibility in the timing of particular
meetings. The 1998 Amendment amends Article 13 of the
Constitution, for example, so as to require that World
Radiocommunication Conferences and Assemblies be held
``normally . . . every two to three years''\12\ as opposed to
``normally . . . every two years.''\34\ The purpose of this
amendment was to promote flexibility and provide enough time
between conferences for the necessary work to be done in
preparation of the agenda. The 2006 Amendment modified these
provisions yet again, to provide that World Radiocommunication
Conferences and Assemblies shall be convened every three to
four years.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Treaty Doc. 108-5 at p. 23.
\13\Treaty Doc. 104-34 at p. 32.
\14\See Treaty Doc. 110-16 at p. 4. Note, also, that this reduction
in the number of World Radiocommunication Conferences and Assemblies
would appear to have the added benefit of reducing the overall costs
incurred by the ITU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functioning of the Radio Regulations Board
The Radio Regulations Board (the ``RRB'') is a body of the
ITU that consists of elected members highly qualified in
radiocommunications who have substantial expertise in issues
relating to the assignment and use of radio frequencies. The
duties of the RRB include, among other things, approving rules
of procedure to be used in the application of the Radio
Regulations and consideration of radiocommunication matters
that cannot be resolved through the application of such rules.
The 1998 Amendment enlarged the RRB from 9 individuals to not
more than 12 or a number corresponding to six percent of the
total number of Member States, whichever is greater,\15\ which
should enable the Board to handle the ever-increasing workload
more effectively. The 2002 Amendment amends Article 9 of the
Constitution to expand the field from which qualified
individuals could be elected to serve on the RRB by removing
the prohibition against having members of the RRB that are of
the same nationality as the Secretary-General of the ITU. The
2002 Amendments also amended Article 14 so as to grant members
of the RRB, when performing their official duties, functional
privileges and immunities equivalent to those granted to the
elected officials of the ITU by each Member State. This
amendment is intended to ensure that the members of the RRB can
continue to function independently, without fearing that
entities that disagree with findings of the RRB may attempt
legal action against them. The 2002 Amendment additionally
amends Article 10 of the ITU Convention to authorize the RRB,
at the request of one or more states, to consider appeals
against decisions made by the Radiocommunication Bureau
regarding frequency assignments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\At present, six percent of the total number of Member States is
not greater than 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electing Officials of the ITU
Article 2 of the Convention provides that elected officials
of the ITU (the Secretary-General, the Deputy Secretary-
General, and the Directors of the Bureaus) shall be eligible
for re-election only once.\16\ The 2006 Amendment clarifies
that this applies only to re-election for the same
position.\17\ Also, the amendment clarifies that the
restrictions on re-election for a second term applies
regardless of whether the terms are consecutive.\18\ The 2006
Amendment similarly amended Article 3 to clarify that the
existing restriction on re-election for a second term for
members of the RRB applies regardless of whether the terms are
consecutive.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\See Treaty Doc. 104-34 at p. 91.
\17\See Treaty Doc. 110-16 at p. 8.
\18\Ibid.
\19\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. PROMOTING GREATER FISCAL STABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
The ITU operates on a biennial budget that is approved by
the Council every two years, which must remain within the
limits set by the Plenipotentiary Conference for two budgetary
cycles. The expenses of the ITU are largely financed through
the contributions of Member States and Sector Members. Other
sources of financing include income from the sale of
publications and satellite notifications, as well as income
from interest on late payments. A few years ago, the ITU had
financial difficulties, but due in part to the amendments
adopted in 1998, 2002, and 2006, the organization has made
considerable progress and now its finances are reasonably
stable. Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator Richard Beaird testified
to the committee that ``the Union is in far better financial
shape than it was certainly in 2002'' and that in 2007, a
balanced budget was adopted by the Council for the first time.
Classes of Contributions
The mechanism for assessing contributions of Member States
and Sector Members of the ITU is unusual. At a meeting of the
Council prior to each Plenipotentiary Conference, the Council
approves a proposed budget or ``draft financial plan'' and
provisionally sets the value of a ``contributory unit'' for
Member States and Sector Members on the basis of the proposed
budget and the total number of contributory units.\20\ The
units are incorporated into ``classes'' of contributions that
range from one-sixteenth of a contributory unit to 40
contributory units, as set forth in Article 33 of the
Convention. The Secretary-General then informs the Member
States and the Sector Members of the provisional amount of the
contributory unit decided upon by the Council and invites
Member States to announce to the ITU the class of contribution
they have provisionally chosen. Each Member State and Sector
Member is free to choose a ``class of contribution'' from the
scale of contribution units although, in accordance with the
1998 Amendment, there are some limitations on the ability of a
Member State to choose a lower contribution class than was
chosen by that Member State at the last Plenipotentiary
Conference.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\For the years 2006-2007, the budget of the Union stands at
339,435,000 Swiss Francs (approximately $308,129,495.20), with a
contributory unit valued at 318,000 Swiss Francs for Member States and
63,600 Swiss Francs for Sector Members. In addition, the contributory
unit for Associates has been fixed at 10,600 Swiss Francs for the ITU
Radiocommunication Sector and ITU Telecommunication Standardization
Sector, 3,975 Swiss Francs for the ITU Telecommunication Development
Sector and 1,987.50 Swiss Francs for Associates from developing
countries participating in the ITU Telecommunication Development
Sector.
\21\See, e.g., Article 28(5), as amended by the 1998 Amendment,
which states that ``[w]hen choosing its class of contribution, a Member
State shall not reduce it by more than two classes of contribution and
the Council shall indicate to it the manner in which the reduction
shall be gradually implemented over the period between plenipotentiary
conferences. However, under exceptional circumstances such as natural
disasters necessitating international aid programmes, the
Plenipotentiary Conference may authorize a greater reduction in the
number of contributory units contribution at the class originally
chosen.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each amendment to the Constitution has consistently moved
up the date by which Member States must inform the ITU of the
class of contribution they will make to the organization, in an
attempt to provide the Plenipotentiary Conference with more
timely information. The 1998 Amendment amends Article 28 of the
Constitution to require that Member States announce their final
decision regarding what class of contribution they intend to
make to the ITU at the Plenipotentiary Conference, rather than
during the six-month period following the Plenipotentiary
Conference provided for in the 1994 Constitution. The 2002
Amendment clarifies that the Plenipotentiary Conference is to
set the date by which time Member States shall announce their
class of contribution within the ``penultimate week'' of the
Conference. The 2006 Amendment goes one step further and
requires that the Plenipotentiary Conference set a date for
Member States to announce their class of contribution at the
latest on Monday of the final week of the Conference, thereby
providing more time to incorporate any financial implications
of the levels chosen into the organization's fiscal planning.
The 2006 Amendment additionally amended Article 33 to identify
with more precision the organizations and Sector Members that
are obliged to share in defraying the expenses of the
conferences, assemblies, and meetings in which they
participate.
Encouraging Additional Contributions and Savings on Costs
In an attempt to encourage Sector Member contributions, the
1998 Amendment amends Article 33 of the Convention to make
clear that Sector Members should identify the Sector to which
their contributions are to be made and provides that Associates
shall share in defraying the expenses of the Sector and the
study group and subordinate groups in which they participate,
as determined by the Council. The 2002 Amendment went further
by amending Article 28 of the Constitution to provide that
Sector Members participating in regional conferences convened
by the ITU to discuss telecommunication matters that are of
particular interest to the region, must contribute to the costs
of the regional conference. The 2002 Amendment also amended
Article 4 of the Convention to provide that the ITU, which had
been bearing the travel, subsistence, and insurance expenses
incurred by the representative of every Member State of the
Council, would only pay such expenses for developing country
representatives of the Council. In response to committee
questions on this topic, Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator Richard
Beaird described the savings this amendment has already
provided for the organization as follows:
Using today's conversion rate of [the] U.S. Dollar to
[the] Swiss Franc (CHF) ($1 US = .97 CHF), the expected
savings on travel expenses for the sixteen ITU Member
States that are developed countries (at an average cost
of $3,931) equals $62,896 per ITU council meeting. The
ITU Council meets annually. Hence, the expected savings
on daily subsistence allowance expenses for the sixteen
ITU Member States that are developed countries (at
$491/day over an average of 10 days), equals $78,560
per Council session. This results in a total savings of
$141,456.
Greater Transparency and More Effective Financial Planning
To improve transparency and effective financial planning,
the 2002 Amendment amends Article 5 of the Convention to
provide that the Secretary-General prepare a four-year rolling
operational plan ``taking due account of the financial plan as
approved by the plenipotentiary conference.'' This four-year
operational plan is to be reviewed by the advisory groups of
all three sectors and reviewed and approved annually by the
Council. The 2002 Amendment similarly adds that the Director of
each sector is required to prepare a rolling four-year
operational plan annually, ``including financial implications
of activities to be undertaken by the Bureau in support of the
Sector as a whole.''\22\ Senior Advisory Groups are required to
review the operational plans of their respective sectors. The
Council must also annually approve each Sector's rolling four-
year operational plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\See Article 12, Article 15, and Article 18 of the Convention,
Treaty Doc. 109-11 at pp. 58, 60, and 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to enhance oversight and increase the
transparency of the budget of the ITU, the 2006 Amendment
amends Article 4 of the Convention to require that the Council
carry out an annual review of income and expenditures in order
to make adjustments, as appropriate, in accordance with the
resolutions and decisions of the last Plenipotentiary
Conference. In addition, Article 5 was amended to provide that,
in preparing and submitting to the Council a biennial draft
budget covering ITU expenditures, the Secretary-General shall
include results-based as well as cost-based budget information.
IV. Entry Into Force
The 1998 Amendment entered into force on January 1, 2000,
for those states that had notified the Secretary General of the
ITU of their acceptance of the 1998 Amendment prior to January
1, 2000,\23\ the 2002 Amendment entered into force on January
1, 2004, for those states that had notified the Secretary
General of the ITU of their acceptance of the 2002 Amendment
prior to January 1, 2004,\24\ and the 2006 Amendment entered
into force on January 1, 2008, for those states that had
notified the Secretary General of the ITU of their acceptance
of the 2006 Amendment prior to January 1, 2008.\25\ Each
amendment will each enter into force for the United States on
the date the United States deposits its instrument of
ratification with the Secretary-General of the ITU for that
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\See Part II of the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference
(Minneapolis 1998), Treaty Doc. 108-5 at p. 43.
\24\See Part II of the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference
(Marrakesh 2002), Treaty Doc. 109-11 at p. 38.
\25\See Part II of the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference
(Antalya 2006), Treaty Doc. 110-16 at p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Implementing Legislation
Existing legislation is sufficient to fully implement the
1998 Amendment, the 2002 Amendment, and the 2006 Amendment; no
additional legislation is required. The 2002 Amendment, for
example, amends Article 10 of the Convention so as to require
that States Parties provide certain functional privileges and
immunities to Members of the Radio Regulations Board equivalent
to those granted to the elected officials of the ITU by each
State Party. The United States, as made clear in a declaration
included in the committee's draft resolution of advice and
consent, would satisfy this requirement through the
International Organizations Immunities Act, 22 U.S.C. Sec. 288
et seq.
VI. Committee Action
The committee held a public hearing on these treaties on
July 10, 2008. Testimony was received from Mr. Richard C.
Beaird, Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator for International
Communications and Information Policy at the Department of
State. A transcript of this hearing can be found in the annex
to Executive Report 110-15.
On September 23, 2008, the committee considered these
treaties and ordered them favorably reported by voice vote,
with a quorum present and without objection.
VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments
The Committee on Foreign Relations believes that the ITU's
work is important to advancing U.S. economic, national
security, and scientific interests. For example, the ITU is
urging regional groups to collaborate and identify the
necessary spectrum for International Mobile Telecommunications
(IMT), which will allow use of advanced broadband mobile
technology on a global basis. The U.S. telecommunications
industry is also highly dependent upon the ITU for radio
spectrum management. According to the Telecommunications
Industry Association (the ``TIA''), the worldwide
telecommunications market is expected to grow at a 9.2 percent
compound annual growth rate from 2008 to 2011 and U.S.
companies expect to take full advantage of this growth.\26\ The
United States is among the leading providers and consumers of
telecommunications goods and services. In fact, the U.S.
telecommunications industry's revenue totaled $1 trillion in
2007. The ITU's management of radio spectrum is of vital
importance to U.S. defense, intelligence, and aeronautics
agencies. The ITU has also been a leader in the development of
Standards for Emergency Telecommunications and related
Telecommunications for Disaster Relief, all of which are
important to national security. Finally, the Radio Regulations
provide frequency band allocations to support the NASA space
station, Lunar, and Martian space exploration programs, as well
as the next generation of unmanned deep space exploratory
programs. In sum, these three amendments improve and strengthen
an organization that is important to U.S. interests.
Accordingly, the committee urges the Senate to act promptly to
give advice and consent to ratification of the 1998 Amendment,
the 2002 Amendment, and the 2006 Amendment, as set forth in
this report and the accompanying resolution of advice and
consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\According to the TIA, worldwide telecommunications revenue
totaled $3.5 trillion in 2007, up 11.2 percent from 2006. See TIA
Telecommunications Market Review and Forecast at 3 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Amendments to the ITU's Governing Instruments
The treaties before the committee reflect three separate
sets of amendments made to the ITU's governing instruments in
an eight-year period. According to information contained in
answers to questions for the record from the committee to
Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator Richard Beaird, none of these
sets of amendments has yet been ratified by as many as half of
the ITU Member States, and to date only eight of 191 Member
States have ratified the 2006 Amendments.
The committee is concerned that frequent amendments to the
ITU's governing documents, and slow and inconsistent
ratification of such amendments by ITU member states, may
result in confusion and uncertainty with respect to the rules
governing the ITU and the participation of member states in its
activities. This situation also undermines transparency and
public understanding of the ITU and its work by making it
difficult to identify the operative rules at any given time on
issues affected by such amendments. The committee notes that if
the ITU continues its current practice of amending its
governing documents as a matter of routine every four years,
these problems may be compounded further. The committee urges
the executive branch to review this ITU practice prior to the
next ITU Plenipotentiary Conference and to engage with other
ITU member states as appropriate to address this issue.
B. Rules of Procedures of Conferences
and Meetings of the ITU
The 1998 Amendment removes the Rules of Procedure of
Conferences and Meetings of the ITU from the ITU Convention,
with the exception of provisions relating to reservations and
the right to vote, and transfers them to a separate instrument,
which would not undergo the formal amendment process reserved
for the Constitution and the Convention.\27\ This separate
legal instrument entered into force on January 1, 2000, for
those states that had accepted the 1998 Amendment as of that
date. The 2002 Amendment transfers further provisions of the
Convention to the Rules of Procedure, including rules relating
to invitations to conferences and assemblies, procedures for
convening or canceling world conferences and assemblies,
provisions for conferences and assemblies when there is not an
inviting government, changes in the place or dates of a
conference or assembly, and time limits and conditions for
submission of proposals and reports to conferences. In the
Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of State to the
President, which is reprinted in full in Treaty Document 109-
11, it is noted that ``several Member States argued that [the]
rules of procedure should be subject to a more flexible
amendment process than that currently applied to the
Constitution and Convention.''\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\Prior to 1998, the Rules of Procedure for ITU Conferences and
other meetings were contained in Article 32 (#340-406; 410-444; 447-
467) of the ITU's 1994 Convention (Treaty Doc. 104-34), which is the
most recent version of the ITU's Convention approved by the Senate and
ratified by the United States. These provisions were deleted by the
1998 Amendment. See Article 32B of the 1998 Convention, SUP 341-467,
Treaty Doc. 108-5 at p. 90.
\28\Treaty Doc. 109-11 at p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of State to
the President, which is reprinted in full in Treaty Document
108-5, it is noted that the executive branch does not expect to
submit amendments to the Rules of Procedures to the Senate for
advice and consent to ratification.\29\ The committee
recognizes that removing the Rules of Procedure of Conferences
and Other Meetings of the ITU from the ITU Convention and
transferring them to a separate document that is not subject to
the formal amendment procedure provided for in the ITU
Constitution and Convention makes it possible for the Rules of
Procedure to be amended more rapidly as the ITU evolves than
would otherwise be possible. The committee generally supports
this development and agrees that amendments to the Rules of
Procedure, which are largely procedural in nature, would not in
the normal course require the advice and consent of the Senate.
Nevertheless, if there is any question as to whether an
amendment to the Rules of Procedure goes beyond what one would
normally anticipate in such an instrument, the committee
expects the executive branch to consult with the committee in a
timely manner in order to determine whether Senate advice and
consent is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\See Treaty Doc. 108-5 at p. IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Resolutions
The committee has included in proposed resolutions for the
three amendments various statements, which are discussed below.
I. DECLARATIONS AND RESERVATIONS TO THE 1998 AMENDMENT
The proposed resolution of advice and consent for the 1998
Amendment includes five declarations and reservations, which
were made by the United States when signing the Final Acts of
the Plenipotentiary Conference in Minneapolis on November 6,
1998, and are intended to be included in the instrument of
ratification, along with a final declaration that is not
intended to be included in the instrument of ratification.
First and Second Statements (No. 90 (second and third paragraph)):
(2) The United States of America reiterates and
incorporates by reference all reservations and
declarations made at world administrative conferences
and world radiocommunication conferences prior to
signature of these Final Acts.
(3) The United States of America does not by
signature or by any subsequent ratification of the
amendments to the Constitution and Convention adopted
by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis, 1998)
consent to be bound by the Administrative Regulations
adopted prior to the date of signature of these Final
Acts. Nor shall the United States of America be deemed
to have consented to be bound by revisions of the
Administrative Regulations, whether partial or
complete, adopted subsequent to the date of signature
of these Final Acts, without specific notification to
the International Telecommunication Union by the United
States of America of its consent to be bound.
The first proposed statement incorporates by reference all
prior statements made at world administrative conferences and
world radiocommunication conferences prior to signature of
these Final Acts in November 1998. The second proposed
statement makes it clear that the United States can only be
considered bound by Administrative Regulations adopted at an
ITU conference if the United States formally notifies the ITU
of its consent to be bound.
Third Statement (No. 101):
The United States of America refers to declarations
made by various Members reserving their right to take
such actions as they may consider necessary to
safeguard their interests with respect to application
of provisions of the Constitution and the Convention of
the International Telecommunications Union (Geneva,
1992), and any amendments thereto. The United States of
America reserves the right to take whatever measures it
deems necessary to safeguard U.S. interests in response
to such actions.
This proposed statement is intended, as described in the
Secretary of State's Letter of Submittal, to reserve ``for the
United States the freedom to respond to other Member State
reservations.''
Fourth Statement (No. 102):
The United States of America, noting Statement 81
entered by the delegation of Cuba, recalls its right to
broadcast to Cuba on appropriate frequencies free of
jamming or other wrongful interference and reserves its
rights with respect to existing interference and any
future interference by Cuba with U.S. broadcasting.
Furthermore, the United States of America notes that
its presence in Guantanamo is by virtue of an
international agreement presently in force and that the
United States of America reserves the right to meet its
radiocommunciation requirements there as it has in the
past.
This proposed statement responds to a statement made by
Cuba, which concerns the use of radio frequencies by the United
States at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba. This
response, which reserves certain U.S. broadcasting rights, is
similar to responses made by the United States at prior ITU
conferences.
Fifth Statement (No. 111):
The delegations of the above-mentioned States [the
United States and 24 other States], referring to the
declaration made by the Republic of Colombia (No. 50),
in as much as this and any similar statement refers to
the Bogota Declaration of 3 December 1976 by equatorial
countries and to the claims of those countries to
exercise sovereign rights over segments of the
geostationary-satellite orbit, consider that the claims
in question cannot be recognized by this conference.
Further, the above-mentioned delegations wish to
affirm or reaffirm the declaration made by a number of
delegations (No. 92) at the Plenipotentiary Conference
(Kyoto, 1994) and declarations at conferences referred
to therein as if these declarations were here repeated
in full.
The above-mentioned delegations also wish to state
that the reference in Article 44 of the Constitution to
the ``geographical situation of particular countries''
does not imply a recognition of claim to any
preferential rights to the geostationary-satellite
orbit.
This proposed statement responds to a statement by Colombia
concerning the use of the geostationary satellite orbit.
Final Declaration:
This Treaty is not self-executing.
This proposed declaration states that the 1998 Amendment is
not self-executing. The Senate has rarely included statements
regarding the self-executing nature of treaties in resolutions
of advice and consent, but in light of the recent Supreme Court
decision, Medellin v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346 (2008), the
committee has determined that a clear statement in the
resolution is warranted. A further discussion of the
committee's views on this matter can be found in Section VIII
of Executive Report 110-12.
II. DECLARATIONS AND RESERVATIONS TO THE 2002 AMENDMENT
The proposed resolution of advice and consent for the 2002
Amendment includes six declarations and reservations, which
were made by the United States when signing the Final Acts of
the Plenipotentiary Conference in Marrakesh on October 18,
2002, and are intended to be included in the instrument of
ratification, along with a final declaration that is not
intended to be included in the instrument of ratification.
First and Second Statements (No. 70 (second and third paragraph)):
(2) The United States of America reiterates and
incorporates by reference all reservations and
declarations made at world administrative conferences
and world radiocommunication conferences prior to
signature of these Final Acts.
(3) The United States does not by signature to or by
any subsequent ratification of the amendments to the
Constitution and Convention adopted by the
Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh, 2002) consent to
be bound by the Administrative Regulations adopted
prior to the date of signature of these Final Acts. Nor
shall the United States of America be deemed to have
consented to be bound by revisions of the
Administrative Regulations, whether partial or
complete, adopted subsequent to the date of signature
of these Final Acts, without specific notification to
the International Telecommunication Union of its
consent to be bound.
The first proposed statement incorporates by reference all
prior statements made at world administrative conferences and
world radiocommunication conferences prior to signature of
these Final Acts in October 2002. The second proposed statement
makes it clear that the United States can only be considered
bound by Administrative Regulations adopted at an ITU
conference if the United States formally notifies the ITU of
its consent to be bound.
Third Statement (No. 71):
In regard to the privileges and immunities to be
extended pursuant to ADD No. 142A of Article 10 of the
Convention of the International Telecommunication
Union, the United States of America shall provide
members of the Radio Regulations Board with functional
privileges and immunities that are equivalent to those
accorded to officials of international organizations
that are designated under the International
Organizations Immunities Act, 22 United States Code 288
et seq.
This proposed statement notes the manner in which the
United States intends to implement the provision that requires
that Member States, consistent with their respective national
laws, grant members of the RRB functional privileges and
immunities that are equivalent to those granted to the elected
officials of the ITU.
Fourth Statement (No. 79):
The United States of America, noting Statement 72
entered by the delegation of Cuba, recalls its right to
broadcast to Cuba on appropriate frequencies free of
jamming or other wrongful interference and reserves its
rights with respect to existing interference and any
future interference by Cuba with U.S. broadcasting.
Furthermore, the United States of America notes that
its presence in Guantanamo is by virtue of an
international agreement presently in force and that the
United States of America reserves the right to meet its
radiocommunication requirements there as it has in the
past.
This proposed statement responds to a statement made by
Cuba, which concerns the use of radio frequencies by the United
States at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba. This
response, which reserves certain U.S. broadcasting rights, is
similar to responses made by the United States at prior ITU
conferences.
Fifth Statement (No. 80):
The United States of America refers to declarations
made by various Member States reserving their right to
take such action as they may consider necessary to
safeguard their interests with respect to application
of provisions of the Constitution and the Convention of
the International Telecommunication Union (Geneva,
1992), and any amendments thereto. The United States of
America reserves the right to take whatever measures it
deems necessary to safeguard U.S. interests in response
to such actions.
This proposed statement reserves the right of the United
States to take such actions as it deems necessary in response
to actions taken by other Member States that are detrimental to
U.S. telecommunication interests.
Sixth Statement (No. 101):
The delegations of the above-mentioned States [the
United States and 27 other States], referring to the
declaration made by the Republic of Colombia (No. 45),
inasmuch as this and any similar statement refers to
the Bogota Declaration of 3 December 1976 by equatorial
countries and to the claims of those countries to
exercise sovereign rights over segments of the
geostationary-satellite orbit, consider that the claims
in question cannot be recognized by this conference.
The above-mentioned delegations also wish to state
that the reference in Article 44 of the Constitution to
the ``geographical situation of particular countries''
does not imply recognition of claim to any preferential
rights to the geostationary-satellite orbit.
This proposed statement responds to a statement by Colombia
concerning the use of the geostationary satellite orbit.
Final Declaration:
This Treaty is not self-executing.
This proposed declaration states that the 2002 Amendment is
not self-executing. The Senate has rarely included statements
regarding the self-executing nature of treaties in resolutions
of advice and consent, but in light of the recent Supreme Court
decision, Medellin v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346 (2008), the
committee has determined that a clear statement in the
resolution is warranted. A further discussion of the
committee's views on this matter can be found in Section VIII
of Executive Report 110-12.
III. DECLARATIONS AND RESERVATIONS TO THE 2006 AMENDMENT
The proposed resolution of advice and consent for the 2006
Amendment includes five declarations and reservations, which
were made by the United States when signing the Final Acts of
the Plenipotentiary Conference in Antalya on November 24, 2006,
and are intended to be included in the instrument of
ratification, along with a final declaration that is not
intended to be included in the instrument of ratification.
First and Second Statements (No. 70(1) (second and third paragraph)):
The United States of America reiterates and
incorporates by reference all reservations and
declarations made at world administrative conferences
and world radiocommunication conferences prior to
signature of these Final Acts.
The United States of America does not, by signature
to or by any subsequent ratification of the amendments
to the Constitution and Convention adopted by the
Plenipotentiary Conference (Antalya, 2006), consent to
be bound by the Administrative Regulations adopted
prior to the date of signature of these Final Acts. Nor
shall the United States of America be deemed to have
consented to be bound by revisions of the
Administrative Regulations, whether partial or
complete, adopted subsequent to the date of signature
of these Final Acts, without specific notification to
the International Telecommunication Union of its
consent to be bound.
The first proposed statement incorporates by reference all
prior statements made at world administrative conferences and
world radiocommunication conferences prior to signature of
these Final Acts in November 2006. The second proposed
statement makes it clear that the United States can only be
considered bound by Administrative Regulations adopted at an
ITU conference if the United States formally notifies the ITU
of its consent to be bound.
Third Statement (No. 70(2)):
The United States of America, recalling the
principles of accountability, responsibility and
transparency that are fundamental to United Nations
reform, notes that it is essential that the
International Telecommunication Union, in carrying out
the mandates of the Plenipotentiary Conference
(Antalya, 2006) adhere to those principles in order to
achieve lasting reform.
This proposed declaration states the view of the United
States that the ITU, in carrying out the mandates of the
Plenipotentiary Conference, should adhere to the principles of
accountability, responsibility, and transparency.
Fourth Statement (No. 104):
(1) The United States of America refers to
declarations made by various Member States reserving
their right to take such action as they may consider
necessary to safeguard their interests with respect to
application of provisions of the Constitution and
Convention of the International Telecommunication Union
(Geneva, 1992), and any amendments thereto. The United
States of America reserves the right to take whatever
measures it deems necessary to safeguard U.S. interests
in response to such actions.
(2) The United States of America, noting Statement 80
entered by the delegation of Cuba, recalls its right to
broadcast to Cuba on appropriate frequencies free of
jamming or other wrongful interference and reserves its
rights with respect to existing interference and any
future interference by Cuba with U.S. broadcasting.
Furthermore, the United States of America notes that
its presence in Guantanamo is by virtue of an
international agreement presently in force and that the
United States of America reserves the right to meet its
radicommunication requirements there as it has in the
past.
The first paragraph of this proposed statement reserves the
right of the United States to take such actions as it deems
necessary in response to actions taken by other Member States
that are detrimental to U.S. telecommunication interests. The
second paragraph of this proposed statement responds to a
statement made by Cuba, which concerns the use of radio
frequencies by the United States at the U.S. naval base at
Guantanamo, Cuba. This response, which reserves certain U.S.
broadcasting rights, is similar to responses made by the United
States at prior ITU conferences.
Fifth Statement (No. 106):
The delegations of the above-mentioned States [the
United States and eight other States], referring to the
declarations made by the Republic of Colombia (No. 58),
Mexico (No. 34) and Ecuador (No. 55), inasmuch as these
and any similar statements refer to the Bogot
Declaration of 3 December 1976 by equatorial countries
and to the claims of those countries to exercise
sovereign rights over segments of the geostationary-
satellite orbit, or to any related claims, consider
that the claims in question cannot be recognized by
this Conference.
The above-mentioned delegations also wish to state
that the reference in Article 44 of the Constitution to
the ``geographical situation of particular countries''
does not imply recognition of a claim to any
preferential rights to the geostationary-satellite
orbit.
This proposed statement responds to statements by other
countries concerning the use of the geostationary satellite
orbit or related claims.
Final Declaration:
This Treaty is not self-executing.
This proposed declaration states that the 2006 Amendment is
not self-executing. The Senate has rarely included statements
regarding the self-executing nature of treaties in resolutions
of advice and consent, but in light of the recent Supreme Court
decision, Medellin v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346 (2008), the
committee has determined that a clear statement in the
resolution is warranted. A further discussion of the
committee's views on this matter can be found in Section VIII
of Executive Report 110-12.
VIII. Resolutions of Advice and Consent to Ratification
1998 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONVENTION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),
SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS AND
DECLARATIONS.
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
amendments to the Constitution and Convention of the
International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended
by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994), signed by the
United States at Minneapolis on November 6, 1998, as contained
in the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference
(Minneapolis 1998) (the ``1998 Final Acts'') (Treaty Doc. 108-
5), subject to declarations and reservations Nos. 90(second
paragraph), 90(third paragraph), 101, 102, and 111 of the 1998
Final Acts and the declaration of section 2.
SECTION 2. DECLARATION
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following declaration:
This Treaty is not self-executing.
2002 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONVENTION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),
SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS AND
DECLARATIONS.
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
amendments to the Constitution and Convention of the
International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended
by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994) and the
Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998), signed by the
United States at Marrakesh on October 18, 2002, as contained in
the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh
2002) (the ``2002 Final Acts'') (Treaty Doc. 109-11), subject
to declarations and reservations Nos. 70(second paragraph),
70(third paragraph), 71, 79, 80, and 101 of the 2002 Final Acts
and the declaration of section 2.
SECTION 2. DECLARATION
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following declaration:
This Treaty is not self-executing.
2006 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONVENTION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),
SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS AND
DECLARATIONS.
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
amendments to the Constitution and Convention of the
International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended
by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994), the
Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998), and the
Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh 2002), signed by the
United States at Antalya on November 24, 2006, as contained in
the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Antalya 2006)
(the ``2006 Final Acts'') (Treaty Doc. 110-16), subject to
declarations and reservations Nos. 70(1)(second paragraph),
70(1)(third paragraph), 70(2), 104, and 106 of the 2006 Final
Acts and the declaration of section 2.
SECTION 2. DECLARATION
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following declaration:
This Treaty is not self-executing.