bill by leaving original but nonexclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court in suits to which ambassadors, other public ministers or consuls are parties.

*This result follows because the present language of 28 U.S.C. 1351 denies to State courts jurisdiction of all proceedings, civil or criminal. Since Federal courts have jurisdiction only in prosecutions for offenses defined and made punishable by acts of Congress, United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32 (1812); United States v. Flores, 289 U.S. 137, 151 (1933), a consular officer who could be charged with an offense cognizable only under State law-e.g., driving under the influence cannot be brought to trial at the present time in any court of this country.

S. Rept. 95-1108, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978), pp. 5–7.

Two Committees of the House of Representatives also held hearings upon the legislation which became P.L. 95-393: the Subcommittee on International Operations of the Committee on International Relations, on the original version of H.R. 7819 (reported in H.R. Rept. 95-526, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977)), which passed the House on July 27, 1977, see Cong. Rec., Vol. 123, No. 128 (daily ed. July 27, 1977), pp. H7878-H7879; and the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the Committee on the Judiciary, to which H.R. 7679 was also referred (reported in H.R. Rept. 95-1410, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978)).

See, also, the 1976 Digest, Ch. 4, § 1, pp. 188-191, 197-198, and the 1977 Digest, Ch. 4, § 1, pp. 260-281.

Some sense of congressional concern regarding the need for revision of United States law on diplomatic immunity is disclosed by the following excerpts from the report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, S. Rept. 95-958:

In recent years, there has been a great deal of public and press attention devoted to the issue of diplomatic immunity. The problems drawing greatest attention involve: (a) traffic accidents; (b) parking and traffic violations; (c) realty disputes; and (d) the nonpayment of bills. Particular concern has been expressed about the U.S. "victims" of diplomatic immunity. These situations are usually caused by traffic accidents in which serious personal injury or property damage occurs. Because of diplomatic immunity, the victims are left without compensation or remedy for their injuries. Consequently, a large number of bills addressing the issues of diplomatic immunity and compensation for American "victims" have been introduced during the 94th and 95th Congresses.

During the consideration of this legislation, the committee expressed concern about the enforcement prospects for the requirement of liability insurance imposed upon diplomats by section 6 of the proposed committee print. . .

With respect to this problem the committee urges the executive branch to promulgate strict regulations implementing the provisions of this bill. In this regard the committee recommends that these regulations provide for the expulsion from the United States of those diplomats who fail to obtain the required insurance, or who allow their policies to lapse.

The committee also considered the problem of unpaid parking tickets by members of the diplomatic community. The provisions of this bill do not directly deal with this problem. However, by codifying the privileges and immunities provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations as the sole United States law on this subject, this legislation would remove the immunity from civil jurisdiction from a large number of lower echelon diplomatic personnel and their families. At the present time, parking violations are generally part of local criminal codes. If local jurisdictions shift these ordi

nances to their civil codes, jurisdiction would then be established over a greater number of the members of the diplomatic community. The committee urges local jurisdictions to consider this step as a means of getting a handle on the problem of traffic violations by diplomatic personnel who do not enjoy immunity from civil jurisdiction.

S. Rept. 95-958, pp. 3-4.

The Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on Feb. 13, 1946, entered into force for the United States on Apr. 29, 1970, upon deposit of its accession (TIAS 6900; 21 UST 1418). Sec. 11 specifies various immunities for representatives of members, some functional and some personal, and includes, in par. (g), "such other privileges, immunities and facilities not inconsistent with the foregoing as diplomatic envoys enjoy. . . ." By sec. 16, "representative" includes all delegates, deputy delegates, advisers, technical experts, and secretaries of delegations. Sec. 18 specifies the immunities of officials of the United Nations. Sec. 19 provides that, in addition to the immunities and privileges specified in sec. 18, the Secretary-General and all Assistant Secretaries-General shall be accorded in respect of themselves, their spouses, and minor children, the privileges and immunities, exemptions and facilities accorded to diplomatic envoys, in accordance with international law. Prior to entry into force of the Convention, privileges and immunities of U.N. representatives were governed by sec. 15 of the Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America, regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations (Headquarters Agreement), signed June 26, 1947 (TIAS 1676; 61 Stat. 3416; 12 Bevans 956).

See, also, the International Organizations Immunities Act, Dec. 29, 1945, particularly sec. 7(b), 59 Stat. 669, 672; 22 U.S.C. (1976), § 288d (b), and various Presidential Executive orders pursuant thereto, beginning with E.O. 9698, Feb. 19, 1946 (3 CFR, 1943-1948 Comp., pp. 508-509).

See, also, the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Organization of American States, Mar. 20, 1975 (TIAS 8089; 26 UST 1025), replacing the Bilateral Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Organization of American States, signed July 22, 1952 (TIAS 2676; 3 UST 4988).

The report of the House Committee on the Judiciary on H.R. 7679, which was incorporated into H.R. 7819, as enacted into P.L. 95-393, noted that the provisions for direct action against insurers of diplomats was necessary to "complete the statutory framework to enable the citizens of the United States means of obtaining redress in our courts against foreign states and officials of foreign states," one step towards which had been the enactment of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-583, Oct. 21, 1976; 90 Stat. 2891; 28 U.S.C. 1330, 1332, 1602-1611, 1391, 1441). H.R. Rept. 95–1410, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978), p. 3.

By a circular note to the Chiefs of Mission in Washington, dated October 31, 1978, the Department of State explained the provisions of Public Law 95-393 and the changes in United States law and practice, effective December 29, 1978, as a result of its enactment. Excerpts from the circular note, which also enclosed a copy of the new law, follow:

Dismissal of Actions Against Individuals Entitled to Immunity

The Department of State will continue to provide to the courts certifications of an individual's status, and the scope of immunity resulting from that status under the Vienna Convention. In many

cases, such a certification alone would be sufficient to result in a dismissal of the lawsuit. However, because of the different scope of immunity granted under the Vienna Convention to different categories of the members of a mission's staff (see articles 31 and 37 of the Vienna Convention) certifications of status alone will no longer dispose of all cases. Disputed questions of fact will sometimes have to be resolved before a final determination can be made as to whether immunity is applicable in a particular case.

For example, in the case of a civil action brought against a member of a mission's administrative and technical staff for an alleged breach of contract, if it is not clear whether the contract were entered into in the course of the member's duties, the court may require evidence on this factual issue before deciding whether the action should be dismissed. While the Department of State will certify to the court in such a case that the individual is a member of the mission's administrative and technical staff and, therefore, is entitled to immunity for acts done in the course of his or her duties, the Department will not normally communicate with the court concerning whether the particular act on which the proceeding is based was or was not done in the course of official duties.

Under the United States judicial system, the courts decide questions as to whether immunity applicable only to an individual's official acts is available in a particular case. Experience gained in cases involving consular officers, employees of international organizations, and others whose immunity is limited to their official acts has shown that judicial resolution of these questions is fair and not unduly burdensome.

Proof of facts that would establish an individual's entitlement to immunity will not necessarily require the individual's personal appearance before a court. This section states explicitly that a motion or suggestion may be made by a representative on behalf of the individual claiming immunity.

Requirement for Liability Insurance

Section 6 requires that missions, members of missions, their families, and senior officials of the United Nations who are entitled to diplomatic immunity must maintain liability insurance against risks arising from their operation of motor vehicles, vessels or aircraft. This requirement will be explained in detail in regulations which will be issued soon. Such a requirement is consistent with widespread State practice regarding adequate insurance coverage for diplomatic missions and personnel. Further information on this subject will be provided to missions.

Direct Actions Against Insurers

Section 7 provides that actions may be brought in the district courts of the United States against the insurer of an individual who is required under section 6 to maintain liability insurance. The purpose of this section is to prevent immunity from impairing the timely resolution of just claims, arising from the operation of motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft, and, when such claims cannot be amicably resolved, to provide access to the courts in a manner

which is consistent with immunity. Together with section 6 of the Act, this section assures an effective remedy in automobile accident cases for individuals claiming personal injury or property damage caused by members of missions and their families.

Federal Jurisdiction

Section 8 provides that the district courts of the United States rather than State or local courts shall have jurisdiction over suits against members of a mission or their families. Of course, any such suit which is barred by immunity must be dismissed, as required by section 5. This section assures that suits against members of missions and their families can be instituted only in Federal courts and that those courts will decide whether immunity prevents the suit.

Dept. of State File No. P78 0176–2269.

By E.O. 12101, Nov. 17, 1978, President Carter designated and empowered the Secretary of State to perform, without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President, the functions vested or to be vested in the President by secs. 4 and 6 of the Diplomatic Relations Act, P.L. 95-393, ante. Fed. Reg., Vol. 43, No. 225, Nov. 21, 1978, p. 54195.

Compulsory Liability Insurance Regulations

Under date of November 23, 1978, the Department of State issued proposed regulations to implement the compulsory liability insurance requirement contained in section 6 of the Diplomatic Relations Act, Public Law 95-393, ante. The regulations constitute a new Subchapter F, "Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities," Part 151, "Compulsory Liability Insurance for Diplomatic Missions and Personnel," in title 22, Code of Federal Regulations.

They specify the type of insurance coverage required of all diplomatic missions, members of missions and their families, and officials of the United Nations entitled to diplomatic immunity, and as to motor vehicles, include recommended limits of liability (22 CFR 151.5), which in any case must not be less than the minimums specified in the financial responsibility, compulsory insurance, or other law of the jurisdiction where the motor vehicle is principally garaged (22 CFR 151.4). They also describe the evidence of insurance necessary before the Department of State will endorse applications for diplomatic automobile license plates or applications for exemption from motor vehicle registration fees; missions are required to furnish such evidence periodically, as well as "otherwise, upon official request" by the Department of State. In response to a comment addressed to the proposed regulations, a provision was included in the final regulations (22 CFR 151.7 (b)), that the insured is expected to respond to reasonable requests from the insurer for cooperation (notwithstanding the insured's immunity from suit).

The text of the final regulations, issued by the Department of State under date of May 15, 1979, effective June 1, 1979, follows:

Subchapter F-Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities

PART 151-COMPULSORY LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS AND PERSONNEL

151.3 Types of insurance coverage required.

151.4

151.5

151.6

151.7

151.8

Minimum limits for motor vehicle insurance.

Recommended limits for motor vehicle insurance.
Authorized insurer.

Policy terms consistent with the Act.

Evidence of insurance for motor vehicles.

151.9 Evidence of insurance required for diplomatic license plates and waiver of fees.

151.10 Minimum limits of insurance for aircraft and/or vessels. 151.11 Notification of ownership, maintenance, or use of vessel and/or aircraft; evidence of insurance.

Authority: Sec. 4, 63 Stat. 111 (22 U.S.C. 2658); Sec. 6, Pub. L. 95-393 (92 Stat. 809, 22 U.S.C. 254e); E.O. 12101 (43 FR 54195). § 151.1 Purpose.

This part establishes regulations required under section 6 of the Diplomatic Relations Act (Pub. L. 95-393; 22 U.S.C. 254e). These regulations require all missions, members of missions and their families, and those officials of the United Nations who are entitled to diplomatic immunity to have and maintain liability insurance against the risks of bodily injury, including death, and property damage, including loss of use, arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use in the United States of any motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft.

§ 151.2 Definitions.

(a) "Act" means the Diplomatic Relations Act, Pub. L. 95-393 (22 U.S.C. 254a et seq., 28 U.S.C. 1364).

(b) "Persons subject to the Act", as defined in Section 2 of the Act, means: (1) The head of a mission and members of the diplomatic staff, administrative and technical staff, and service staff of a mission, as such terms are defined in Article 1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 (TIAS 7502, 23 U.S.T. 3227); (2) members of the family of a member of the diplomatic staff of a mission who form part of his or her household if they are not nationals of the United States, and members of the family of a member of the administrative and technical staff of a mission who form part of his or her household if they are not nationals or permanent residents of the United States; and (3) senior officials of the United Nations as defined in paragraph (d) of this

section.