In any event, Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce v.

Adams, recently decided by Judge June Green of this Court,

suggests that judicial second-guessing regarding the appropriate scope of consultation would be inappropriate. Faced with a

strikingly analogous situation, Judge Green held:

Since the record indisputably establishes
that some consultation took place with
both the CAB and Congress plaintiffs
really ask the Court to read a specific
amount of consultation into the statute
and the State Department's procedures.
This the Court will not do.

The Court is ill-equipped, considering
the intricacies of negotiations with
foreign governments and the pressures
and demands incident thereto to require
that a specified number of CAB and
Congressional members be consulted. This
is clearly a case where the formulation
and application of judicially discover-
able and manageable standards would be
impossible, Baker v. Carr supra, because
the climate of negotiations would vary
depending on the relationship between
the United States and the country
involved. Thus the Court will not impose
standards that may thwart the achievement
of foreign policy objectives of the
United States. [Slip op. at 5-6].

In sum, although the Dole-Stone Amendment did not

mandate consultations, consultations did take place and inquiry into their scope and nature is not a proper subject for judicial review. The President's termination of the treaty violated no statute and was well within his Article

II powers.

Conclusion

This action should be dismissed.

Alternatively, there

being no disputed issue of material fact and defendants

having shown that they are entitled to judgment as a matter

of law, their Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.

This matter having come before the Court on the Motion

of defendants to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment in their favor; and the Court having considered the Motion and supporting papers and the Opposition of plaintiffs thereto, and having heard the argument of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises; and the Court having concluded that it lacks jurisdiction over the action because the Amended Complaint presents a political question and plaintiffs lack standing to sue and, further, because the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it is, therefore, this

day of

ORDERED

1979, hereby

That this action be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have, this 26th day of February, 1979, served the foregoing Motion to Dismiss or, in the

Alternative, for Summary Judgment, with the accompanying Points and Authorities, Local Rule 9 (hl Statement, Declarations of Messrs. Christopher, Holbrooke, and Rovine, and proposed Order, upon plaintiffs by causing copies to be hand-delivered to their counsel as follows:

Daniel J. Popeo, Esq.

Washington Legal Foundation

1712 Eye Street, N. W., Suite 210
Washington, D.C. 20006

Paul D. Kamenar, Esq.

1712 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20006

J. Terry Emerson, Esq.
427 Russel Building
Washington, D.C.

20510

Catherine A. Behnich

CATHERINE A. RIBNICK

This memorandum confirms my advice to you that the President has the authority under the Constitution to decide whether the United States shall give the notice of termination provided for in Article X of the US-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty and to give that notice, without Congressional or Senate action.

While treaty termination may be, and sometimes has been, undertaken by the President following Congressional or Senate action, such action is not legally necessary and numerous authorities recognize the President's power to terminate treaties acting alone. Presidents have exercised that power on several occasions. The following sections of this memorandum note the views of a number of Constitutional and international law authorities, and identify previous Presidential treaty terminations undertaken without action by Congress. An Appendix to this memorandum contains detailed histories of past U.S. treaty terminations.

Views of Constitutional and International Law Authorities

The Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, by the American Law Institute, states in Section 163: