appointed to the court of appeals. During his six-year tenure, Starr consistently displayed his conservative ideology, but inspired respect from both conservatives and liberals for his judicial integrity. Starr accepted the position of solicitor general offered him by President GEORGE H.W. BUSH in 1989. His duties as solicitor general included arguing cases on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court and deciding which government cases merited appeal. He returned to private practice when President Clinton took office. On August 5, 1994, a three-judge panel selected Starr to replace Robert B. Fiske Jr. as independent counsel for the inquiry into the Whitewater affair clouding the Clinton admin- istration. Although Fiske had already done so, Starr investigated Bill and Hillary Clinton’s connec- tion to the failure of the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, a bank in Little Rock, Arkansas, owned by James and Susan McDougal, business partners of the Clintons. Susan McDougal refused to testify before Starr’s GRAND JURY, and consequently served about 18 months in prison on CONTEMPT charges. Starr also reopened an investigation into the 1993 death of White House counsel Vincent W. Foster Jr. Fiske had concluded that Foster had committed suicide, but CONSPIRACY theories abounded that Foster had been murdered. Starr’s July 1997 report concluded that the death was a suicide. At the request of Attorney General JANET RENO, Starr also investigated the 1993 firing of White House travel employees at a time when friends of the Clintons were getting into the travel business, and the misappropriatio n of FBI files on Re- publicans by White House staffers. Starr took an unprecedented step when he called HILLARY CLINTON to testify before a grand jury in 1996. Starr had earlier subpoenaed from Hillary Clinton’s Little Rock law firm billing records relating to her work for the failed Madison Guaranty. Some of the records were missing until early 1996, when they were dis- covered in the Clintons’ private living quarters of the White House. Starr sought the First Lady’s testimony to determine whether the Clintons or others in the administration had hidden evidence or otherwise tried to obstruct justice. Starr faced significant criticism from the beginning of his tenure for the perceived partisan nature of his investigation, as well as for the cost of the investigation, estimated at $40 million through 1998. Starr was al so criticized for a paucity of results. Former Arkansas governor Jim Guy Tucker was con- victed of conspiracy for actions in a REAL ESTATE scheme from his days as a lawyer in public practice, and Susan and Jim McDougal were found guilty of criminal charges. Webster Hubbell, Hillary Clinton’s former law partner and high-ranking Justice Department official, pleaded guilty in 1994 to two counts of TAX EVASION and MAIL FRAUD. David Hale, a former municipal judge and businessman, was convicted on FRAUD and conspiracy charges and has claimed that he was pressured by Clinton to make an illegal loan, but these charges are unsubstanti- ated. Starr failed to obtain convictions in a 1996 trial involving bank officers accused of misap- propriating funds, which he tried to link to Clinton’s 1986 campaign for governor. In early 1998, revelations involving Presi- dent Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky began to surface, and Starr’s office was immediately in the midst of controversy. Starr sanctioned the wiring of Pentagon employee Linda R. Tripp, a confidant of Lewinsky, in order to learn more about the alleged affair between the president and Lewinsky, and to discover any attempts to conceal the affair. Despite significant criticism that he had gone too far, Starr continued with his investigation, claiming there was a need to determine whether President Clinton had committed PERJURY or obstructed justice in connection with a SEXUAL HARASSMENT case brought against Clinton by former Arkansas state employee, Paula Corbin Jones. In early January 1998, Lewinsky offered an AFFIDAVIT in the Jones case denying that she had had a sexual relationship with the president. On January 17, 1998, Clinton made the same denial in a DEPOSITION in the Jones case. Starr’s investigation was further complicated in April 1998 when Federal District Judge SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT dismissed the Jones lawsuit before trial. Dismissal of the lawsuit engendered further criticism for Starr when he refused to drop his perjury and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE investigation. In July 1998, Starr subpoenaed President Clinton to testify before the grand jury. The SUBPOENA was later withdrawn when Clinton agreed to testify voluntarily. Clinton also volun- tarily provided to the office of independent counsel a vial of blood to determine whether a WHAT I FEAR IS AN AGE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ILLITERACY . —KEN STARR GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 338 STARR, KENNETH WINSTON dress of Lewinsky’s was stained with his semen. The president testified via videotape to the grand jury on August 17, 1998. Later that day, he admitted in a televised speech that he had had an “inappropriate” relationship with Lewinsky, but he steadfastly maintained that he had not committed perjury or obstructed justice. In the speech, Clinton severely castigated Starr’s investigation, a move that angered many of the president’s supporters. However, the investigator became the investi- gated on October 30, 1998, when a federal judge approved a special inquiry into whether Starr’s office had leaked secret grand jury information. In September 1998, Starr delivered his report and 36 boxes of accompanying evidence to Capitol Hill, detailing the president’s sexual conduct and setting out possible grounds for IMPEACHMENT. Although Clinton continued to enjoy significant support from the public, the Starr Report prompted the House Judiciary Committee to open an investigation into Clinton’s actions in October 1998. Starr testified before the House Judiciary Committee for 12 hours in November 1998, and the next month the committee sent four ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT to the full House. The four articles were pared to two by the full House in December—one article for perjury before a grand jury, and another for obstruction of justice in the Jones lawsuit. Clinton was acquitted in February 1999. Prosecutions by the office of independent counsel continued in the first half of 1999, but showed signs of slowing down. Susan McDou- gal was acquitted in late April on an obstruction of justice charge, and the jury failed to reach a verdict on two counts of criminal contempt. In May 1999, a MISTRIAL was declared when the jury failed to reach a verdict in the case of Julie Hiatt Steele, whom Starr charged had obstructed justice and made false statements regarding the investi- gation of alleged misconduct by the president toward Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer. Starr later announced that he would not retry either McDougal or Steele. On June 30, 1999, Webster Hubbell plead guilty to charges that he lied to bank regula t ors to conceal work by himself and Hillary Clinton on an Arkansas land development project when they were partners in Little Rock. Hubbell was sentenced to a year of PROBATION. Finally, Starr scored a victory when federal judge Susan Webber Wright held President Clinton in civil contempt for lying in his deposition in the Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. Senate hearings began in February 1999 to determine whether the Independent Counsel Act, enacted in 1974 in the wake of the WATERGATE scandal, should be allowed to expire. Kenneth Starr testified against extension of the law. Congress allowed the Independent Counsel Act to expire in June 1999. Starr resigned his post in October 1999 and was succeeded by senior LITIGATION counsel Robert W. Ray. In September 2000 Ray announced that he was closing the Whitewater inquiry based on insufficient evidence. The total cost of the investigation was estimated to be $70 million dollars in public funds. After he resigned, Starr returned to private practice at the Washington, D.C based firm of Kirkland & Ellis. In the first decade of the 2000s, he continued to practice law, lecture, and write. He also served as an adjunct professor at New York University, and a distinguished visiting professor at GEORGE MASON University School of Law in Virginia. In 2002, Starr published First Among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life. As of 2009, Starr was on the faculty at Pepperdine University’s Sch ool of Law. FURTHER READINGS Posner, Richard A. 1999. An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton. Cam- bridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. Schmidt, Susan, and Michael Weisskopf. 2000. Truth at Any Cost: Ken Starr and the Unmaking of Bill Clinton. New York: HarperCollins. Starr, Kenneth W. 2002. First among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life. New York: Warner Books. Wittes, Benjamin. 2002. Starr: A Reassessment. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCES Clinton, Hillary Rodham; Clinton, William Jefferson; Executive Privilege; Whitewater. START TREATIES The Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) Treaties, START I (1991 ) and START II (1993), provided for large cuts in the nuclear arms possessed by the United States and the Soviet Union (later the Russian Federation). START I was the first arms-control treaty to reduce, rather than merely limit, the strategic offensive nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union, while START II required even deeper cuts in nuclear forces. The United States GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION START TREATIES 339 and Russia have also negotiated additional treaties, including START III (1997) and the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT) (2002), the latter of which became effective on June 1, 2003. START I The Soviet Union and the United States began the START negotiations in 1982, following the disappointing results of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), which had not led to significant reductions in the number of nuclear arms possessed by the superpowers. Nine years later, on July 31, 1991, presidents GEORGE H. W. BUSH of the United States and Mikhail Gorba- chev of the Soviet Union signed the 700-page START Treaty (START I), formally designated as the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. START I provided for the reduction of U.S. nuclear capacity by roughly 15 percent, and Soviet capacity by 25 percent, within seven years after RATIFICATION. The treaty contained a number of verification procedures, including on-site inspections with spot checks, monitoring of missile-production plants, and the exchange of data tapes from missile tests. Although START I reductions appeared formidable, critics noted that they simply returned both countries to the levels of nuclear arms that they had possessed in 1982, when negotiations had begun. Both superpowers still maintained the capacity to destroy each other several times over. Others claimed that because START I allowed for the modernization and expansion of certain weapon categories by both parties, it would lead to a continuation of the arms race. START II Changes in the political climate between the superpowers, particularly the DISSOLUTION of the Soviet Union in the summer of 1991, inspired further START negotiations. In September 1991 President George H.W. Bush declared that the superpowers had an historic opportunity to negotiate s ignificant reductions in NUCLEAR WEAP- ONS . He made a significant gesture toward this goal by calling U.S. long-range bombers off 24- hour alert and discontinuing development of the MX missile. New Russian president Boris Yeltsin recip- rocated Bush’s conciliatory gestures when he announced on January 25, 1992, that Russia “no longer consider[ed] the United States our potential adversary” and declared that his country would no longer target U.S. cities with nuclear missiles. Four days later, President Bush announced further arms cuts in his State of the Union address, including cancellation of the B-2 bomber, the mobile Midgetman missile, and advanced cruise missiles. Yeltsin later responded with an even more ambitious proposal to reduce nuclear arsenals to an amount between 2,000 and 2,500 warheads each and to eliminate strategic nuclear weapons entirely by the year 2000. Although the latter goal proved too radical to implement, the former would be nearly achieved. Yeltsin and Bush fulfilled their historic announcements in June 1992 by signing an accord, the Joint Understanding on the Elimi- nation of MIRVed ICBMs (multiple warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles) and Further Reductions in Strategic Offensive Arms, that promised to reduce their combined nuclear arsenals from about 15,000 warheads to 6,000 or 7,000 by the year 2003. According to Bush, “With this agreement, the nuclear nightmare recedes more and more for ourse lves, for our children, and for our grandchildren.” The June 1992 accord led to the develop- ment of START II, formally called the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian FEDERATION on the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. It was signed by Bush and Yeltsin on January 3, 1993. Under its provisions, the United States and Russia would each have between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads by 2003, an amount roughly two-thirds that of pre-START levels. Warheads on submarine-launched ballistic missiles would be limited to no more than 1,750 for each country. The treaty also required the elimination of all land-based heavy ICBMs and multiple warhead missiles. As a result, ICBMs may carry only one nuclear warhead, a development that many agreed would lead to improved strategic stability. In December 1994, President BILL CLINTON and the leaders of the nations of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and the Ukraine—the former Soviet republics still possessing nuclear arms—formally ratified the START I treaty into force, clearing the way for further consideration of START II by the U.S. Senate. On January 26, 1996, the U.S. Senate ratified the START II Treaty on a vote of 87-4. 340 START TREATIES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION The START II treaty was originally sched- uled to be implemented by January 2003. However, a 1997 protocol extended the deadline until December 2007 due to concerns by Russian leaders about their ability to meet the earlier date. Because the U.S. Senate has failed to ratify the 1997 protocol, START II has not yet entered into force. START III and SORT Clinton and Yeltsin negotiated for a START III treaty, which would have reduced the number of deployed strategic warheads to between 2,000 and 2,500. The two leaders agreed to a frame- work in March 1997, and the negotiations were scheduled to begin after the START II treaty entered into force. However, because START II never became effective, the START III treaty was never negotiated. The most significant aspects of the START III treaty were proposed provisions regarding the destruction of warheads. Five years after the START III negotiations stalled, President GEORGE W. BUSH and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the SORT treaty, in which the United States and Russia agreed to reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals to an amount between 1,700 and 2,200 war- heads each. These limitations are similar to the proposed START III treaty, but the new SORT treaty does not contain provisions regarding the destruction of warheads or the destruction of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. Pursuant to the SORT treaty, Bush directed the military to reduce its nuclear stockpile. By 2007 the United States had reduced its number of warheads to just over half of its 2001 total. FURTHER READINGS Arms Control Association. 2002. “Arms Control Today.” Available online at www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_06/ factfilejune02.asp (accessed March 15, 2010). Bennett, Paul R. 1997. Russian Negotiating Strategy: Analytic Case Studies from SALT to START. Commack, N.Y.: Nova Science. Blank, Stephen J., ed. 2009. Prospects for U.S Russian Security Cooperation. Strategic Studies Institute: U.S. Army War College. Kartchner, Kerry M. 1992. Negotiating START: Strategic Arms Reduction Talks and the Quest for Strategic Stability. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction. Mazarr, Michael J. 1991. START and the Future of Deterrence. New York: St. Martin’s. CROSS REFERENCES Arms Control and Disarmamen t; Cold War. STATE As a noun, a people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other states. The section of territory occupied by one of the United States. The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a case, “The State v. A. B.” The circumstances or condition of a being or thing at a given time. As a verb, to express the particulars of a thing in writing or in words; to set down or set forth in detail; to aver, allege, or declare. To set down in gross; to mention in general terms, or by way of reference; to refer. CROSS REFERENCES Pleading; Testimony; Witnesses. STATE ACTION State action refers to a requirement for claims that arise under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and civil rights legislation, for which a private citizen seeks relief in the form of damages or redress based on an improper intrusion by the government into his or her private life. The U.S. SUPREME COURT has established that the protections offered by the Fourteent h and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution apply only to actions authorized or sanctioned by state law. The state action requirement means that private acts of racial DISCRIMINATION cannot be addressed under these amendments or the federal CIVIL RIGHTS laws authorized by the amendments. The FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT prohibits a state from denying any person DUE PROCESS OF LAW and the EQUAL PROTECTION of the law. The FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT prohibits a state from infringing on a person’s right to vote. Both amendments were passed after the Civil War to guarantee these constitutional rights to newly freed slaves. During RECONSTRUCTION, Congress enacted many laws that it claimed were based on these amendments. Armed with this constitutional authority, Congress, in the Civil Rights Act of 1875, sought to prohibit racial discrimination by private parties in the provision of public accommodations, such as hotels, restaurants, theaters, and public transportation. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STATE ACTION 341 The Supreme Court struck down the 1875 act in the Civil Rights cases (109 U.S. 3,3S.Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 8 35 [1883]). It held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, “it is state action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment.” The Court relied on language of the amendment that provides that “no state” shall engage i n certain s pecified conduct. This restrictive reading of the state-action requirement permitted racial discrimination to flourish in the South. For example, the Supreme Court upheld the “white primary,” adeviceusedto circumvent theFifteenth Amendment,in Groveyv. Townsend (295U.S.45,55 S.Ct.622,79L.Ed.1292 [1935]). The Court reasoned that because political parties were private organizations, their primary elections did not constitute state action. The Supreme Court began to move away from a strict state-action requirement in the 1940s. In Smith v. Allwright (321 U.S. 649, 64 S. Ct. 757, 88 L. Ed. 987 [1944]), the Court struck down the WHITE PRIMARY as violative of the Fifteenth Amendment, thus overruling Grovey. The Court now found that primary elections played an important part in the democratic process and must be considered as officially sanctioned by the state. The Court extended this type of analysis in Shelley v. Kraemer (334 U.S. 1, 68 S. Ct. 836, 92 L. Ed. 1161 [1948]), ruling that racially discrim- inatory restrictive covenants affecting REAL ESTATE were unenforceable in STATE COURTS,becauseany such enforcement would amount to state action in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. Groups of homeowners used restrictive cove- nants to prevent the sale or rental of their homes to African Americans, Jews, and other minorities. A restriction was included in their real estate deeds forbidding such sale or rental. Until 1948 this form of private discrimination was thought to be legal because the state was not involved. By the 1960s the Supreme Court was applying a more sophisticated analysis to determine if the state-action requirement had been met. In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (365 U.S. 715, 81 S. Ct. 856, 6 L . Ed. 2d 45 [1961]), the Court found state action when a state agency leased property to a restaurant that refused to serve African Americans. It stated that state action in support of discrimination exists when there is a “close nexus” between t he f unctions of the state a nd the private discrimination. This public functions test allows courts on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a private actor provides services that are analogous to those provided by state government. Another example would be company towns, where a private company exerts the equivalent of government rule over the residents. Nevertheless, the Court has not abandoned the state-action requirement. In Moose Lodge v. Irvis (407 U.S. 163, 92 S. Ct. 1965, 32 L. Ed. 2d 627 [1972]), a racially restrictive private club refused to serve the African American guest of a white member. The Court determined that the mere grant of a liquor license did not convert the private club’s discriminatory policy into state action under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision illustrates the other exception to the state action requirement: the excessive entanglement test. The grant of a liquor license did not meet this test but a corporate creditor who acted jointly with a local court using unconstitutional, state- assisted procedures was sufficiently entangled to be judged a state actor (Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 102 S. Ct. 2744, 73 L. Ed. 2d 482 [1982]). FURTHER READINGS Currie, David. 1999. Federal Jurisdiction in a Nutshell. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group. Lewis, Harold Jr., and Elizabeth Norman. 2004. Civil Rights Law and Practice. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group. Vieira, Norman. 1998. Constitutional Civil Rights in a Nutshell. 3rd. ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group. CROSS REFERENCES Civil Rights Cases; Integr ation. STATE COURTS Judicial tribunals established by each of the fifty states. Each of the fifty state court systems in the United States operates independently under the constitution and the laws of the particular state. The character and names of the courts vary from state to state, but they have common structural elements. State governments create state courts through the enactment of statutes or by constitutional provisions for the purpose of enforcing state law. Like the federal court system, the judicial branch of each state is an independent entity, often called “the third branch” of government (the other two being the executive and legislative branches). Though independent, state courts are dependent on the state legislatures for the appropriation of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 342 STATE COURTS money to run the judicial system. Legislatures also authorize court systems to establish rules of procedure and sometimes direct the courts to investigate problems in the legal system. Most states have a multilevel court struc- ture, including a trial court, an intermediate court of appeals, and a supreme court. Only eight states have a two-tiered system consisting of a trial court and a supreme court. Apart from this general structure, the organization of state courts and their personnel are determined by the laws that created the court system and by the court’s own rules. State courts are designed to adjudicate civil and criminal cases. At the trial level, there are courts of limited and general jurisdiction. Limited jurisdiction courts, sometimes called inferior courts, handle minor civil cases, such as small claims or conciliation matters, and lesser crimes that are classified as misdemeanors. The persons who judge these cases may be part-time judges, and some states still allow persons not trained in the law to hear these cases. A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE falls within this category and handles typically minor matters such as traffic violations. Courts of general jurisdiction, also known as superior courts, handle major civil matters and more serious crimes, called felonies. Some states have a large number of trial courts. They can include small claims, munici- pal, county, and district courts. Since the 1980s, some states have simplified their systems, creat- ing a unified trial court that hears all matters of limited and general jurisdiction. Intermediate courts of appeal consider rou- tine appeals brought by losing parties in the trial courts below. These are “error correcting” courts, which review the trial court proceedings to determine if the trial made errors in procedure or law that resulted in an incorrect decision. If the court determines that an error was made (and it was not a HARMLESS ERROR), it reverses the decision and sends it back to the trial court for another proceeding. Intermediate courts of appeal are supposed to interpret the precedents of the state’s supreme court. However, in every state there are many areas of law in which its supreme court has not ruled, leaving the appellate courts free to make decisions on what the law should be. These courts process thou- sands of cases a year, and losing parties generally have a right to appeal to these courts, no matter how dubious the merits of the appeal. The supreme court of a state fulfills a role similar to the U.S. Supreme Court. A state supreme court interprets the state constitution, the statutes enacted by the state legislature, and the body of state COMMON LAW. A supreme court is a precedential court: its rulings govern the interpretation of the law by the trial and appellate courts. A supreme court also administers the entire state court system, and the chief justice of the court is the spokesperson for the judiciary. In New York and Maryland, the highest court is called the court of appeals. In New York, the trial court is called the supreme court. These and other names for courts are based on his- torical circums tances but do not alter the substance of the work these courts perform. The supreme court also establishes rules of procedure for all state courts. These rules govern civil, criminal, and juvenile court procedure, as well as the admission of evidence. State supreme courts also promulgate codes of professional responsibility for lawyers. Statecourtshavebecomehighlyorganized systems. Beginning in the late 1960s, federal money helped states rethink how they deliver services. All states have a professional state court administrator, who administers and supervises all facets of the state court system, in consultation with the trial, a ppellate, an d supreme courts. Research and planning functions are now com- mon, and state court s rely he avily on computers for record keeping and statistical analysis. At the county level, court administrators, previously known as clerks of court, oversee the operations of the trial courts. Court clerks, officers, bailiffs, and other personnel are called upon to make the system work. Judges have court reporters, who record trial proceedings either stenographically or electronically, using audio or video recording devices. State court judges, unlike federal judges, are not appointed for life. Most states require judges to stand for election every six to ten years. An election may be a contest between rival candi- dates, or it may be a “retention election,” which asks the voters whether or not a judge should be retained. STATE DEPARTMENT The Department of State, the senior executive department of the U.S. government, was established by an act of July 27, 1789, as the Department of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STATE DEPARTMENT 343 United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations (USUN) United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Under Secretary for Political Affairs (P) Under Secretary for Management (M) Counselor and Chief of Staff (S/COS) African Affairs (AF) Assistant Secretary European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR) Assistant Secretary East Asian and Pacific Affairs (EAP) Assistant Secretary Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) Assistant Secretary International Organizations (IO) Assistant Secretary International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) Assistant Secretary Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA) Assistant Secretary South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA) Assistant Secretary Administration (A) Assistant Secretary Consular Affairs (CA) Assistant Secretary Diplomatic Security and Foreign Missions (DS) Assistant Secretary Foreign Service Institute (FSI) Director Information Resource Management (IRM) Chief Information Officer Medical Services (M/MED) Director Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) Director Resource Management (RM) Chief Financial Officer Human Resources (HR) Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) Assistant Secretary Oceans and Int'l Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) Assistant Secretary Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) Assistant Secretary Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs (G) Department of State Deputy Secretary of State D(L) Deputy Secretary of State D(S) Executive Secretariat (S/ES) Executive Secretary Secretary of State (S) Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (T) International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN) Assistant Secretary Political-Military Affairs (PM) Assistant Secretary Verification, Compliance and Implementation (VCI) Assistant Secretary Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R) Education and Cultural Affairs (ECA) Assistant Secretary International Information Programs (IIP) Coordinator Public Affairs (PA) Assistant Secretary Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs (E) Economic, Energy & Business Affairs (EEB) Assistant Secretary Intelligence and Research (INR) Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs (H) Assistant Secretary Office of the Chief of Protocol (S/CPR) Ambassador Office of Civil Rights (S/OCR) Director Office for Counterterrorism (S/CT) Coordinator and Ambassador at Large Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance (F) Director Office of Global AIDS Coordinator (S/GAC) Ambassador at Large Office of Global Women's Issues (S/GWI) Ambassador at Large Office of Inspector General (OIG) Inspector General Office of International Energy Coordinator (S/IEC) Coordinator Office of Legal Adviser (L) Legal Adviser Office of Policy Planning (S/P) Director Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) Coordinator Office of War Crimes Issues (S/WCI) Ambassador at Large Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G/TIP) Ambassador at Large ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 344 STATE DEPARTMENT Foreign Affairs and was renamed Department of State by an act of September 15, 1789. The U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE is part of the executive branch of government and is princi- pally responsible for foreign affairs and foreign trade. It advises the president on the formula- tion and execution of foreign policy. As chief executive, the president has overall responsibil- ity for the foreign policy of the United States. The Department of State’s primary objective in the conduct of foreign relations is to promote the long-range security and well-being of the United States. The department determines and analyzes facts relating to U.S. overseas interests, makes recommendations on policy and future action, and takes the necessary steps to carry out established policy. In so doing, the department engages in continuous consultations with the Congress, other U.S. departments and agencies, and foreign governments; negotiates treaties and agreements with foreign nations; speaks for the United States in the UNITED NATIONS and in more than 50 major international organizations in which the United States participates; and represents the United States at more than 800 international conferences annually. Office of the Secretary Secretary of S tate The SECRETARY OF STATE, the principal foreign policy adviser to the president, is responsible for the overall direction, coordi- nation, and supervision of U.S. foreign relations and for the interdepartmental activities of the U.S. government overseas. The secretary is the first-ranking member of the cabinet, is a member of the NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL (NSC), and is in charge of the operations of the department, including the Foreign Service. The office of the secretary includes the offices of the deputy secretary, under secretaries, assistant secretaries, counselor, legal adviser, and inspector general. Economic and Agricultural Affairs The under secretary for economic and agricultural affairs is principal adviser to the secretary and deputy secretary of state on the formulation and conduct of foreign economic policy. Specific areas for which the under secretary is responsible include international trade, agriculture, energy, finance, transportation, and relations with developing countries. International Security Affairs The under secretary for international security affairs is responsible for ensuring the integration of all elements of the Foreign Assistance Program as an effective instrument of U.S. foreign policy and serves as chair of the Arms Transfer Mana- gement Group. Other areas of responsibility include international scientific and technolog- ical issues, communications and information policy, a nd technology transfers. Regional Bureaus Six geographic bureaus, each directed by an assistant secretary, are responsible for U.S. foreign affairs activities throughout the world. These bureaus are organized by region as the bureaus of African Affairs, European and Canadian Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Inter-American Affairs, Near Eastern Affairs, and South Asian Affairs. The regional assistant secretaries also serve as chairs of interdepartmen- tal groups in the NSC system. These groups discuss and decide issues that can be settled at the assistant secretary level, including those arising out of the implementation of NSC decisions. They prepare policy papers for consideration by the council and contingency papers on potential crisis areas for council review. Functional Areas Diplomatic Security The Bureau of Diplo- matic Security, established under the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, as amended (22 U.S.C.A. § 4803 et seq.), provides a secure environment for condu cting U.S. diplomacy and promoting U.S. interests worldwide. The assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security is respo nsible for security and protective operations abroad and in the United States, counter-terrorism planning and coordination, security technology development, foreign government security training, and per- sonnel training . The Security Awareness Staff directs the development and execution of bureau-wide security and information awareness policies and programs, press and media relations, and public awareness. The Security Awareness Pro- gram provides information on diplomatic secu- rity concerns and is a focal point for responding to public inquiries and maintaining media relations on diplomatic security issues and events. The Training Support Division provides pub- lications and training videotapes on diplomatic security concerns. The Private Sector Liaison Staff maintains daily contact with and actively supports the U.S. private sector by disseminating timely, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STATE DEPARTMENT 345 unclassified security information concerning the safety of U.S. private-sector personnel, facilities, and operations abroad. The staff operates the Electronic Bulletin Board, acomputerized,unclas- sified security information database accessible to U.S. private-sector enterprises. It also provides direct consultation services to the private sector concerning security threats abroad. The Overseas Security Advisory Council promotes cooperation on security-related issues between U.S. private-sector interests worldwide and the Department of State, as provided in 22 U.S.C.A. § 2656 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C.A. app.). The council serves as a continuing liaison and provides for operational security cooperation The State Department’ s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices O B ne of the U.S. State Department’smost important tasks is to submit to Congress annual reports on the state of human r ights in countries throughout the world. The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, as the book containing these reports is titled, contains extensive and detailed information that allows Congress and the State Department to make better decisions regarding U.S. policy toward foreign n ations. The State Depa rtment has submitted country reports to Congress each year since 1977. In the first year, the r eports covered 82 countries, and by 1995 that number had grown to 194. U.S. embassy staff members in each country write the preliminary report about the country. They obtain information from government and military officials, journalists, academics, and human rights activists. Embassy staff members often put themselves at great risk in collecting human rights information in countries with extensive rights violations. State Department staff members then edit the reports. They attempt to gather still more evidence from international human rights groups, international bodies such as the United Nations, and other sources. The country reports are prefaced by an overview of human rights developments around the world, written by the assistant secretary of the Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Division of the State Department. This overview summarizes the interna- tional human rights situation, identifies those nations with serious rights violations, and comments on the state of democracy around the world. Each report begins with basic information regarding the government and economy of a nation, followed by detailed information on the status of human rights in the country. The 1995 report about Brazil serves as an example of the extensive detail in the country reports. The Brazil report chronicles significant human rights abuses in that country, including killings by police and military death squads, the murder of street children in Rio de Janeiro, and numerous instances of torture. The report also describes the social, political, and legal factors in Brazil that contribute to human rights violations. These include overloaded courts and prisons, corruption of public officials and police, widespread poverty, and ineffective investigation into police and military brutality. Each report also analyzes the human rights situation for women, racial and ethnic minorities, and workers in the co untry. The report about Brazil indicates a high incidence of physical abuse of women, while noti ng that the country has increased the number of special police stations assigned the task of preve nting crimes against women . Serious violations against the rights of indigenous peoples are also recorded, including atrocities committed by the military and private parties during land disputes. On the subject of workers’ rights, the Brazil report details unsafe working conditions, use of child labor in sugar and charcoal production, and use of forced labor in mining and agricul ture. FURTHER READING “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.” 2009. Available online at www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/index.htm (acc- essed March 15, 2010). CROSS REFERENCES Genocide; Human Rights. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 346 STATE DEPARTMENT between department security functions and the private sector. The council also provides for regular and timely exchange of information between the private sector and the department concerning developments in protective security. Additionally, it recommends methods and pro- vides material for coordinating security planning and implementation of security programs. Economic and Business Affairs The Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs has overall responsibility for formulating and implement- ing policy regarding foreign economic matters, including resource and food policy, interna- tional energy issues, trade, economic sanctions, international finance and de velopment, and aviation and maritime affairs. Intelligence and Research The Bureau of Intelligence and Research coordinates programs of intelligence, analysis, and research for the department and other federal agencies and produces intelligence studies and current intel- ligence analyses essential to the determination and execution of foreign policy. Through its Office of Research, the bureau maintains liaisons with cultural and educational institutions and oversees contract research and conferences on foreign affairs subjects. International Communications and Informa- tion Policy The Bureau of International Com- munications and Information Policy is the principal adviser to the secretary of state on international TELECOMMUNICATIONS policy issues affecting U.S. foreign policy and national security. The bureau acts as a coordinator with other U.S. government agencies and the private sector in the formulation and implementation of inter- national policies relating to a wide range of rapidly evolving communications and information tech- nologies. The bureau promotes U.S. telecommu- nications interests bilaterally and multilaterally. International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs is responsible for developing, coordinating, and implementing international narcotics control assistance activi- ties of the Department of State as authorized under sections 481 and 482 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C.A. §§ 2291, 2292). It is the principal point of contact with and provides advice on interna- tional narcotics control matters for the OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET , the NSC, and the White House OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY in ensuring implementation of U.S. policy in international narcotics matters. The bureau provides guidance on narcotics control matters to chiefs of missions and directs narcotics control coordinators at posts abroad. It also communicates or authorizes communication as appropriate with foreign governments on drug control matters including negotiating, conclud- ing, and terminating agreements relating to international narcotics control programs. International Organization Affairs The Bureau of International Organization Affairs provides guidance and support for U.S. participation in international organizations and conferences. It leads the development, coordination, and imple- mentation of U.S. multilateral policy. The bureau formulates and implements U.S. policy toward international organizations, with particular em- phasis on those organizations that make up the United Nations system. Democracy, Human Rights and Labor The Bureau of Democracy, HUMAN RIGHTS and Labor leads the U.S. efforts to promote democracy, protect human rights and international religious freedom, and advance labor rights globally. It prepares the annual Country Repo rts on Human Rights, which are regarded as the most compre- hensive and objective assessment of human rights conditions around the world. Legal Advisor The legal advisor advises the secretary and, through the secretary, the presi- dent, on all matters of INTERNATIONAL LAW arising in the conduct of U.S. foreign relations. The legal adviso r also provides general lega l advice and services to the secretary and other officials of the department on matters with w hich the department and overseas posts are concerned. Consular Affairs The Bureau of Consular Affairs, under the direction of the assistant secretary, is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the IMMIGRATION and nationality laws, insofar as they concern the department and the Foreign Service, for the issuance of passports and visas and related services, and for the protection and WELFARE of U.S. citizens and interests abroad. Approximately 18 million passports are issued each year by the Passport Office of the bureau. The bureau has agencies in Boston, Chicago, Honolulu, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, Stamford, and Washington, D.C. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STATE DEPARTMENT 347 . for obstruction of justice in the Jones lawsuit. Clinton was acquitted in February 199 9. Prosecutions by the office of independent counsel continued in the first half of 199 9, but showed signs of slowing. DEPARTMENT The Department of State, the senior executive department of the U.S. government, was established by an act of July 27, 17 89, as the Department of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STATE. consideration of START II by the U.S. Senate. On January 26, 199 6, the U.S. Senate ratified the START II Treaty on a vote of 87-4. 340 START TREATIES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION The