* \icronesia’s Compact: Who Vozes On What?» MSC recently asked Rutgers University International Law professor Roger Clark to comment on various aspects of the Compact, its subsidiary agreements and voting procedures. Two questions and his rernonses the same way as the Compact; 3. Out of an abundance of caution, to resolve any possible consritutional question about what the “nativonal government” is. “dy Wall all.the subsidiay agreements Neither of the Agreements on Marine Sovereiznty (initialed by the FSM and Belau) “ollow: F of the Compact anil thus requires approval in ° be’ inctnded in one vote on the Compact, contemplates reference to voters. or will any of them be voted on sepa- The Belau Military Use and Operating rately? Razuts Agreement does noc contain any pro- "I can find nothing in the Compact that suggests any intention that the subsiJiary agreements are to be specifically soted on along with the Compact. Indeeu, vision for submission of the Agreement to the referendum. An argument can be made. that che 50-year period of military use, lated agreements seems to proceed on the basis that they are merely inter-govern- ment to a modification of the Compact which should accordingly be considered directly by the people. This is not contemplated by the documents that I have seen. plus a further 50-year "denial" period convects this From just a "subsidiary" agree- Section 462 of the Compact which Jists remental agreements to be concluded pursuant to the normal approval process of treaties set out in the Constitutions of each of the sovernments. This includes lcgislative ection in each instance, but not a referen- The bottom line thus seems to be that only the Compact, and in the case of Belau and the Federated States the harmful sub- ning the five side agreements so far ini~ialled. fically to the voters. (I do not know whether a Marshall Islands harmful substanc agreement is being drafted. It does not appear to be required either by the Compact of the Marshall Islands Constitution. Give the somewhat strained interpretations of Section 314 of the Compact in the agreement jum. But the answer is more complicated shan this, as one quickly realizes in exani- The Belau Radioactive Apreement requires submission to a referendum because of the -articular provisions of the Belau Constitution. (It may also amount to a modification ul the Compact and thus require submission on that ground also, but subject to a diffe-~ rent majority.) The Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) Understanding on Meanings of Terms in Section 314 of the Compact (dealing with radioactive anc other harznful substances and nuclear weapons) provides that it “shall be submit~ ted for popular and legislative approval to- gether with and in the same manner as the Compact." I do not know why this was done. The Federata States Constitution does not have a referendum requirement in the case of radioactive, toxic chemical and other harmful substances. Activities with such sub- stances require the “express approval of the national govermment." "National government" is not defined. It probably refers to the legislative and executive acting together, buc it may refer to the federal executive. My guess is that the referendum on the Understanding was added for one or more of these reasons: 1. The political sensitivity of the issue (allowing certain nuclear-related activities); 2. While couched as an “Understand ing” on "Meanings", the document rc oseeonefallyv o madiftesrian of Secrtan 714 * Stances agreements, will be presented speci with the other two governments, one may be necessary to resolved the ambiguities thus created as to just what the original underStanding of Section 314 was.) If the educational campaign surroundin the referndum is properly conducted, the voters will >.e aware that the other side agreements are a part of the "Compact package" and if they object to them they can vote down the Compact. But they will not be able to vote separately on each one. 2. What effect do the 50-year land use and further 50-year "denial" provision in the Belau MilitaryUse and Operatin Rights Agreement have on whther the United Nations will regard the whole Compact package as a valid example of Free Association? The extension of denial (the right of the U.S. to foreclose access to Micronesia to any third country for military use) beyo the 15-vear minimum period contemplated by the Compact was apparently forced on the negetiators for the two sides at a late sta of the negotiations by members of the Senat ~ *