CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 1945 UNITED STATES SENATE, A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:30 a. m., in the committee room, the Capitol, Senator Walter F. George (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators George (chairman), Pepper, La Follette, and White. Also present: Senator Brewster. Also present: Stokeley W. Morgan, Chief, Aviation Division, Office of Transportation and Communications, State Department; Stephen Latchford, adviser on air law, Aviation Division; Edward G. Miller, Jr., Office of Assistant Secretary of State Acheson; Robert A. Lovett, Assistant Secretary of War for Air; Col. H. R. Harris, Chief of Staff, Air Transport Command; Lt. Col. William Mitchell, assistant executive officer to Assistant Secretary of War for Air; Artemus L. Gates, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Air; and Commander Malcolm P. Aldrich, special assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Air. PROCEEDINGS Senator GEORGE (chairman of subcommittee). The subcommittee will come to order. The committee has under consideration the socalled Agreement No. 2, or the Convention on International Civil Aviation. STATEMENT BY ROBERT A. LOVETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF WAR FOR AIR (Mr. Lovett was accompanied by Col. H. R. Harris, Chief of Staff, Air Transport Command, and Lt. Col. William Mitchell, assistant executive officer to Assistant Secretary of War for Air.) Senator GEORGE. Mr. Lovett, I believe you are appearing for the Army? Mr. LOVETT. Yes, sir. Senator GEORGE. You may make such statement as you desire to make to the committee on this treaty or convention. Mr. LOVETT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appreciate very much this opportunity to appear before you and to state the War Department's position on the matter which you are now considering. Commencing in July 1944 the War Department at the invitation of the State Department participated in preparation of the proposed air navigation and technical agreement which the United States submitted to the International Civil Aviation Conference, and throughout the Conference itself the War Department had official military representatives present to advise the United States delegation. As Assistant Secretary of War for Air I participated as a consultant in the preparations for the Conference, I was present at Chicago on a number of occasions during the Conference itself, and I followed the course of its deliberations very closely. While the International Convention on Civil Aviation may not be perfect, it is, in my opinion, as satisfactory an agreement from the point of view of the United States as could be obtained, and it certainly represents a tremendous step forward over the Paris and Habana conventions which preceded it. The War Department believes that the convention will be of great assistance in establishing a United States international air transport system after the war and favors ratification of the convention by the United States Senate. Briefly, the War Department's reasons for supporting the International Civil Aviation Convention are as follows: 1. The convention provides means for establishing minimum standards on technical aids to air navigation and on safety regulations governing international flight. The basic uniformity thus achieved will facilitate operations of United States planes, both commercial and private, which fly into foreign countries. At the same time, room is left for this country to establish higher standards to keep pace with our own technical advances. 2. The convention will set up an international organization which can make recommendations on minimum uniformity in technical matters and bring these up to date as the art progresses. The organization will also act as a clearing house for exchange of information on other matters, such as rates, subsidies, and international aviation agreements which information is now mostly not available and which will be beneficial to this Government in its future planning. Since the organization has no power over commercial matters, such as establishment of routes and limitation of rates and frequencies, this country will still be free to expand its international commercial services to the extent that necessary rights of entry and commercial stop can be obtained from the other countries concerned. 3. The convention provides for mutual recognition of certificates of airworthiness and licenses of air crew members, thus accomplishing in a single agreement with a great many countries what this country has been able to achieve with only a limited number of countries through a series of bilateral agreements. Since such certificates and licenses, to be recognized, must meet the international standards established under the convention, reasonably adequate safeguards will be provided as regards foreign operators flying in our country. At the same time we can be confident that certificates and licenses granted to our aircraft and personnel will be at least equal to such standards and thus will be recognized elsewhere. 4. Under the convention, each signatory country agrees not to discriminate between the aircraft of the other signatory countries when it establishes prohibited areas, regulations on operation and navigation, and conditions on use of public airports. The advantages accruing to this country from this equality of treatment are obvious. 5. With respect to matters which are particularly important to our national security, such as establishment of prohibited areas, prohibit ing carriage of munitions, and freedom of action in time of war or national emergency, the rights of each signatory are adequately safeguarded. In summary, the War Department believes that adherence to the Chicago convention by the United States will greatly facilitate the establishment of a strong United States international air transport system and that adherence to it would be definitely in the national interest. Senator GEORGE. Have you any questions, Senator White? Senator WHITE. You have in mind of course that what is before us apparently is the set of four documents-an interim agreement, a treaty, and two "annexes" or "appendixes," whatever name you call them. Have you given consideration to whether the interim agreement, No. 1, and appendixes III and IV are obligations, or contain obligations, which may be assumed by the Executive without sanction by the Senate? Mr. LovETT. No, sir; I have not. I have regarded the document with its four general subdivisions as a single document which was under consideration by this committee, and I have not considered it from the point of view of any powers that might be in existence. Senator WHITE. If you have regarded them as a single document, would they not all have to be either the subject of executive agreement or the subject of Senate ratification? Mr. LOVETT. Well, Senator, perhaps I have not understood your question accurately. My comments here relate to the document which was forwarded to the Senate by letter dated March 12, and which is set out in full in this Government publication, forwarding the document. The letter was attached to one dated March 5 from the Acting Secretary of State, and it is entitled "Convention on International Civil Aviation," which has parts relating to air navigation, et cetera. Senator WHITE. What I specifically wanted to get at was whether the War Department had an opinion which it would care to express as to the status of the interim agreement and appendixes III and IV; specifically, whether those are agreements which the Executive can enter into and bind us without concurrence of the Senate, or whether they are instruments which require ratification by the Senate. Now, if you are treating the whole four as a single document, why, that is one thing.. Mr. LOVETT. No, Senator; I am afraid I misunderstood you. The War Department has only considered as far as I know for the purposes of expressing its opinion this specific document. Senator WHITE. This treaty, No. 2? Mr. LOVETT. This treaty, here, sir. The matters which you spoke of as parts 2, 3, and 4-I thought that you were speaking of the articles enumerated in this, which have the same numbers. Senator WHITE. No; I refer to the interim agreement and to the appendixes numbered III and IV. Mr. LOVETT. No, sir; I was speaking of the parts of this. Senator WHITE. I take it then that you are not expressing an opinion about those? Mr. LOVETT. That is right, sir; I am not. You see this has four parts, too, sir. Senator WHITE. Very well. Senator GEORGE. No further questions? Senator Brewster, did you wish to ask any questions? Senator Brewster. If I could. Senator GEORGE. Yes, sir. Senator BREWSTER. Then I gather that you on behalf of the War Department are here expressing no opinion regarding the so-called interim convention or the appendixes III and IV dealing with air transport and air transit. Mr. LovETT. That is correct, sir. My comments are limited solely to the document covered by this specific reference. Senator BREWSTER. Has the War Department given consideration to the problems presented by those other documents? Mr. LOVETT. Yes, Senator Brewster; they have. Senator BREWSTER. And has it at any time given any formal expression to that view on that? Mr. LOVETT. Since the Chicago Conference, I do not recall of any formal comments made by the War Department on it. Senator BREWSTER. The War Department before that time did express very considerable concern over the contemplated agenda, did they not, of the Chicago Conference? Mr. LOVETT. As originally sent out, sir, the War Department expressed in a confidential memorandum to the State Department concern as to the intrepretation of certain parts of what I believe was the agenda that was sent to the various participating nations, as part of the invitation. Senator BREWSTER. Yes. Mr. LOVETT. None of those expressions as I recall it related to the air-navigation document, but more to the question of commercial rights, rights of transit, etcetera. I do not have them accurately in mind. Senator BREWSTER. The War Department was considerably concerned as to any action which might contemplate the determination of commercial services; were they not? Mr. LOVETT. The designations of specific routes Senator BREWSTER. Yes. Mr. LOVETT. Was a matter of concern to us, arising according to my best recollection in part through a misunderstanding which was subsequently cleared in correspondence between the State Department and the War Department. Senator BREWSTER. Was not the concern of the War Department lest the Chicago agreement should go beyond the matter of air transit and rights for technical stop? Mr. LOVETT. I do no recall accurately, sir; but I believe that the specific objections related in part to the theory of multilateral discussions of commercially operated routes. Senator BREWSTER. Yes. Mr. LOVETT. That is, as compared with the approach by bilateral discussions. Senator BREWSTER. Yes. Mr. LOVETT. As I said, a memorandum or a letter from the State Department to the War Department subsequently cleared that objection arising apparently out of a misunderstanding, and by the time of the Chicago Conference the War Department was in accord with the expressed procedure of the State Department, and, as you |