Mr. MEEKER. No immunity at all.

Senator CASE. If the Ambassador with his hammer and saw did it why you couldn't stop him.

Mr. MEEKER. If we felt his efforts were menacing enough we could speak to his government about it and maybe ask that he go home. Senator CASE. Right. But you still have no control of the use of the premises unless it requires some material physical change. Mr. MEEKER. That is true, yes.

NEED FOR DIPLOMATS TO ABIDE BY LOCAL LAWS

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, I am much obliged. In general, the concerns I have had, and we have been talking about, are not affected materially by this convention. Is that a fair statement? I am not going to vote for it if it does, because I am not going to vote for anything that changes the situation to the further laxity of the enforcement of our traffic laws.

Mr. MEEKER. The convention certainly does not affect these interests adversely. In fact I think its effects have been distinctly affirmative and positive in article 41 where it states that without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state. This is a clear statement in a treaty for the first time of the duty to abide by the law.

Senator CASE. Could you tell me, when a response from the Department to my inquiry about the suggestions of a point system in traffic laws might be expected. I say this because I don't think I will vote on this treaty until I have the answer to it.

Mr. MEEKER. Mr. Mitchell informs me that this is now in the Office of Protocol. When we go back to the Department we will inquire and see what progress is being made.

Senator CASE. You can go back and see.

Thank you very much.

Senator CHURCH. Senator Clark, do you have any questions?

IMPORTANCE OF RATIFICATION

Senator CLARK. Mr. Meeker, how urgent does the State Department think the ratification of this convention is? I noticed it started on this round in 1961. The Soviet Union and a number of other states have already ratified it. Is this a matter which has much effect, if any, on our international posture?

Mr. MEEKER. I think that it does. This is a treaty which was drawn up at a conference of over 80 countries on the basis of much work that had been done in the United Nations for 7 or 8 years before that.

It is an important treaty. A substantial number of countries have become parties to it already. Probably others would do so after the United States ratifies. Since we consider it a good treaty, we would like to see the United States become a party and we would like to see the treaty accepted and applied quite generally throughout the world.

Senator CLARK. I understand you have had some discussion about what would perhaps be a natural question in the mind of some acceptors, that is whether ratification of the convention would have any adverse effect on the espionage problem and the ability of the FBI to ferret out spies in foreign embassies-a question which often does aggitate a number of Senators.

Mr. MEEKER. I don't think it would have the slightest effect on the ability of law enforcement agencies to pursue their normal functions.

EFFECT ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Senator CLARK. Will this have any effect on existing immigration law with respect to domestic servants brought into this country by diplomats who are then fired or leave and whose servants are then deported. I happen to feel strongly about this having had a personal experience which resulted in my having to get a private bill through the Congress. I am concerned about some of the labor aspects of this. In the first place a domestic servant is brought over here by a diplomat, and pretty soon he or she comes to know a certain amount about the rights and wages and hours of work. If much effort is made by them to improve their economic situation, there is always the threat, "Well, if you don't continue to work for $2 a day we are going to let you out and then they will deport you and back you will go to Paraguay."

If the servant is let out then the only other situation may be to tie up with another mission or be deported. It may be that in terms of overall policy of the United States this is not too bad but it does create a personal or individual hardship. I wonder if you have any views on that.

Mr. MEEKER. I think that does sometimes happen. If one looks at it from the other point of view, I suppose it would be quite unsatisfactory and probably unacceptable to the Congress if the servants of diplomatic officers upon being discharged or leaving the employ of their employer could thereby achieve preference status or some special treatment under the immigration laws. If they had that ability by virtue of their employment, that would work hardship on a lot of other people whose cases might be as meritorious or more meritorious.

Senator CLARK. It would be subject to a good deal of abuse, I can see this. But I want to tell you, I got the most wonderful Spanish cook that way and she had unique capabilities. I don't want to pursue this at any length but it does seem to me that with the situation the way it is in this country at the moment that there might well be some kind of a provision whereby a person with particular capabilities wouldn't have to be deported and sent out of the country if he or she could show a skill which is in short supply. This might apply to many other skills, too. I remember an incident which shocked me when a very capable Italian mechanic who had been a chauffeur for a diplomat was let out and was hired by a gentleman of some eminence in Washington who holds a very high Government position. The immigration people came and literally handcuffed him and took him out of the house of this individual who employed him in all innocence, and sent him back to the country of his origin.

Mr. MEEKER. I believe the new immigration bill, the administration's immigration bill

Senator CASE. Which Senator Clark and I are cosponsors of.

Mr. MEEKER (continuing). Is going to be very helpful in situations where the foreign national does have some special skill, where the existing system of quotas has operated to his detriment and prevents his coming here to establish his livelihood, so that I would hope that through a combination of intelligent and humane administration, plus the much greater flexibility of the new legislation which we hope to see on the books, this should make it possible to avoid at least a large number of those hardship cases.

Senator CASE. I think the place to take a look at it is in connection with the immigration bill.

NEED FOR EXPANDING WORLD LAW

I have only one other matter I want to mention to you which is not really relevant to this treaty. I heard a very interesting talk the other day before a group which calls itself Members of Congress for World Peace Through World Law, by Prof. Roger Fisher at Harvard University Law School, in which he suggested the possibility of making a perceptible extension of the field of international law by arranging through diplomatic channels to permit courts to take a wider jurisdiction of judicial controversy than is presently the case, such as matters which were now reserved. For example, if the limousine or the automobile of the American Ambassador to Paris runs over a French citizen, it is my understanding that this becomes a diplomatic matter rather than a matter for the courts, is that correct?

Mr. MEEKER. Well, it can be if immunity is not waived, yes.

Senator CASE. I just mention this for your consideration and perhaps later I will come up and talk to you about it. Perhaps we could make a really rather significant contribution to the spread of international law if our State Department took a somewhat less conventional view toward the controversies which could be considered justiciable before the courts of foreign countries rather than insisting on handling them as a diplomatic matter. In this way we might even build up the jurisdiction of the World Court. I make those observations not for any particular comment from you but just to indicate the possibility at a later date we might talk about it.

Mr. MEEKER. I think it is a very interesting suggestion. One of the things we have been interested in is arranging for a very comprehensive, broad coverage plan of insurance for diplomats' cars, both the mission vehicles and the individually owned cars. We have discussed this with the superintendent of insurance here in Washington, and with representatives of some associations of insurance companies, and I think it will not be impossible or indeed difficult in the end to work out an entirely satisfactory plan.

We are at the moment trying to gather some further information from missions here in Washington on which to base our proposals.

Senator CASE. As you know, in many States, the interest of an insurance company cannot be revealed to the jury. In this situation you are speaking of, would this result-in the event there was disagreement between the plaintiff and the insurance company as to the amount

of recovery-in a case getting into court, or would it still have to be handled through diplomatic channels?

Mr. MEEKER. It could go to court and what we would expect would be to have the normal immunity waived for the purposes of the lawsuit.

Senator CASE. In connection with the insurance there would be an automatic waiver?

Mr. MEEKER. Yes.

Senator CASE. Professor Fisher's suggestion was a good deal broader than that and I just give you an example which may or may not have any merit. He said for years and years the United States and United Kingdom have been arguing about the status of Christmas Island out in the Pacific. This seemed to him to be a typical kind of a situation that ought to go to the World Court for solution. It is handled in diplomatic channels and pretty far down the line in the line of priority and it would be an action of timidity to give in, in the interests of your own country.

I don't know whether you know that and wonder whether you would comment on it.

Mr. MEEKER. I would only comment that we did 4 years ago make a rather large survey of a number of disputed island territories, especially in the Pacific, to see whether there would be some real purpose to be served by litigating their proper title, ownership, and sovereignty.

We came to the conclusion that the effort would probably not be justified by the results. The amount of work that would have to be done by the other countries and by ourselves would be very large. The amounts of real estate are very small.

Quite frequently, the basis of the U.S. claim is a lot less strong than we might like to see it, and our ultimate conclusion was that we would do better to leave the legal situation alone and to continue to make agreed arrangements from time to time with the other country asserting claims. We have done this very successfully in a very large number of instances, and that approach has appeared to be satisfactory even though, perhaps, not as intellectually satisfying as to have the legal issues finally resolved.

Senator CLARK. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

DRIVING REQUIREMENTS FOR DIPLOMATS

Senator CASE. Does a diplomat have to get a driver's license in this country to drive a car?

Mr. MEEKER. No, he does not.

Senator CASE. He does not have to? Suppose he is blind? Mr. MEEKER. He does presumably have to be able to drive. There is no requirement that a diplomat get a driving license here, and the same is true of our representatives in most other countries. Senator CASE. Does that apply in the District of Columbia? Could New Jersey require that a diplomat have a license?

Mr. MEEKER. I do not think so in the sense of penalizing him if he undertakes to drive without a license. I think the State could not subject him to penalties for driving without a New Jersey license.

Senator CASE. So the requirements, such as compulsory insurance, which apply in some States in various forms cannot be made applicable to diplomats?

Mr. MEEKER. This would have to be done by virtue of arrangements which the State Department would make, and which we would undertake with the various local authorities, insurance associations, and the diplomatic missions.

Senator CASE. You do not do that now, do you?

Mr. MEEKER. We have it under study, and I hope we will work it out in a way that will provide a large measure of protection for the public and will avoid some of the very unfortunate and tragic accidents which have in the past occurred occasionally, and where there has not been forthcoming immediately suitable compensation.

NEED FOR INSURANCE

Senator CASE. I feel very strongly that nobody should be in a position to drive with impunity, as you say, because tragic accidents occur for which there is no recourse. I think if we are going to do this there should be automatic payment by the Government of the United States. I think there ought to be something set up so that the individual affected could sue the United States and recover in any amount as if it were the violating person. I just do not think citizens should have to take the burden of this diplomatic immunity, important as the country. As you pointed out so well, we do not give this to the foreigner to be enjoyed and flaunted. It is not something to satisfy his ego. It is for the purpose of making it possible, to avoid harassment on a mutual basis of each other's agents abroad, and permit intercourse of nations, and we ought to encourage it. This is fine.

There is no reason why individuals should be made to pay for this country's benefit. If we are going to do this, then, it seems to me, we should have some absolute provision by statute setting up a right of action against the United States of America for every violation, so that he could recover against an individual's diplomatic immunity.

Would you just comment generally about that proposition.

Mr. MEEKER. Well, that would, of course, require an act of Congress. Senator CASE. Oh, yes; it could be recommended.

Mr. MEEKER. I would think that the better approach, one that we ought to try first, would be to work out an insurance plan and see that it is applied. I think that ought to be tried first before making the U.S. Government liable to pick up the tab.

Senator CASE. Is there anything wrong with the logic of this? We do this for the benefit of the United States and all its people. Shouldn't all the people pay for it and not have the accidental, arbitrary, fortuitous penalties put upon individuals?

Mr. MEEKER. I suppose there have been some earlier experience with legislation of that type. For example, New York wanted very much to be reimbursed for the costs of added police protection at the General Assembly session of 1960, and I think that legislation still has not been enacted.

There have also been legislative proposals to reimburse the States for the amount of real property taxes which were not collected from diplomatic missions, and that legislation also has not become law.