After the writer's article under the above title' went to press, New York adopted with some minor changes the two uniform acts discussed in the article. There were the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act2 and the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.' Another noteworthy development which took place after the article was written was the introduction in the United States House of Representatives of a bill with the provocative title, "Non-Recognition of Foreign Country Judgments Act." This bill would give the President power to proscribe by executive order the enforcement of judgments rendered in countries which are committed by treaty to enforce judgments originating in jurisdictionally improper fora.4 As specified in the bill, these are fora based solely on the plaintiff's nationality or domicile, or the mere presence of assets of the defendant in the forum state. The bill was introduced by Representative Abner J. Mikva of Illinois. Its purpose is to strengthen the President's hand in negotiating treaties with the Common Market States in derogation from the provisions of the Common Market Convention of September 27, 1968 governing enforcement of judgments rendered in a Community State in favor of a domiciliary against a non-domiciliary. Absent such treaties, the six Member States forming the European Economic Community are bound by the Convention to enforce each other's judgments against nondomiciliaries even if they were rendered in a forum which would be improper under the criteria of Congressman Mikva's bill. The bill is drawn along lines suggested in Professor Nadelmann's article, published in Harvard Law Review, "The Common Market Judgments Convention and a Hague Conference Recommendation: What Steps Next ?"5 The article itself appears in the Congressional