No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
American Consular Jurisdiction in Morocco and the Tangier International Jurisdiction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 March 2017
Extract
In a litigation between the United States and France and Morocco, the International Court of Justice had to determine not so long ago whether United States consular jurisdiction in the French Zone of the Protectorate of Morocco extended merely to disputes among nationals and protégés of the United States, as provided for in its treaty with Morocco of 1836, or to all cases in which an American citizen or protege is a defendant. The latter—extended—type of consular jurisdiction had accrued to the United States through the operation of most-favored-nation clauses contained in its treaties with Morocco.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1955
References
1 Case concerning Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. U.S.A.), [1952] I.C.J. Reports 176; 80 Journal du Droit International [hereafter cited as Clunet] 725 (1953); digested in 47 A.J.I.L. 136 (1953).
2 Treaty of Sept. 18, 1836 (8 Stat. 484), Art. 20; 1 Malloy, Treaties 1212 (1910); D. H. Miller, Treaties, etc., Vol. IV (1934), p. 33.
3 Notably, Treaty of Sept. 18, 1836, cited supra, Art. 24.
4 Note 1 supra. The decision has been discussed in: Manley 0. Hudson, “The Thirty-First Year of the World Court,” 47 A.J.I.L. 1, 8 (1953)Google Scholar; Sweeney, Joseph M., “Treaty Bights of the United States in Morocco,” 27 Dept. of State Bulletin 620 (1952)Google Scholar; Fitzmaurice, G. G., “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice (1951–1954),” 30 British Yearbook of International Law 1, 58 (1953)Google Scholar; Johnson, D. H. N., “The Case concerning Rights of Nationals of the U.S.A. in Morocco,” 29 ibid. 401 (1952)Google Scholar; Cheng, Bin, “Rights of U. S. Nationals in the French Zone of Morocco,” 2 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 354 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sweeney, J. M., “Rights of U. S. Nationals in Morocco,” 4 ibid. 145 (1955)Google Scholar; de Soto, J., “Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 27 August 1952,” 80 Clunet 517 (1953)Google Scholar; de Laubadière, A., “Le statut international du Maroc et 1’arrêt de la Cour internationale de Justice,” 6 Revue Juridique et Politique de l’Union Françhise 429 (1952)Google Scholar; Fougère, L., “L’arrêt de la Cour internationale de justice du 27 août 1952,” 32 Gazette des Tribunaux du Maroc 141 (1952)Google Scholar; Fournier, Claude, “Le diff‘rend franco-américain au sujet des importations américaines au Maroc,” 68 Revue Algérienne, Tunisienne et Marocaine de Législation et de Jurisprudence 269 (1952)Google Scholar; Rossillion, Claude, “The Most-Favored-Nation Clause in Case Law of the International Court of Justice,” 82 Clunet 77, 93 et seq. (1955)Google Scholar.
5 Sir Arnold McNair, President, and Judges Basdevant, Hackworth, Zoričić, Klaestad, Badawi, Read, Hsu Mo, Levi Carneiro, Sir Benegal Rau, M. Armand-Ugon, participated. Judges Hackworth, Badawi, Levi Carneiro, and Rau filed a dissenting opinion, [1952] I.C.J. Reports 215; 80 Clunet 771 (1953).
6 184 League of Nations Treaty Series 351; 34 A.J.I.L. Supp. 225 (1940).
7 E.g., Rabat Appeal Court, March 10, 1954, 6 Revue Marocaine de Droit 407 (1954) (money due); same court, Nov. 12, 1952, 5 ibid. 40 (1953), [1953] Juris-Classeur Périodique II. # 7678, noted by André Gross, [1954] Recueil Sirey II. p. 97, noted by P.-Louis Riviére (expulsion from premises); Casablanca Criminal Court, Nov. 6, 1952, 80 Clunet 667 (1953) (prosecution for murder of Marr, an American). Cf. Brémard, F., “Les conséquences de 1'arrêt de La Haye en matière d’organisation judiciaire marocaine,” 32 Gazette des Tribunaux du Maroc 147 (1952)Google Scholar.
8 See Herbert Liebesny, The Government of French North Africa 25 (1943); Caillé, Jacques, Organisation judiciaire et procédure marocaines 141 (Paris, 1948)Google Scholar.
9 [1952] I.C.J. Reports 186; 80 Clunet 737 (1953).
10 See 2 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 507 (1941). On the Protectorate, see 1 ibid. 85. Cf. Regil, Eugenio Mora, “El régimen de capitulaciones en Marruecos,” 2 Revista Jurídiea de Marruecos 77 (1951)Google Scholar.
11 See Plaza, Manuel de la, Derecho de Marruecos 107 (Madrid, 1941)Google Scholar; Rodriguez Aguilera, Cesareo, Manual de Derecho de Marruecos 133 (Barcelona, 1952)Google Scholar.
12 The Tangier Zone is an “internationally administered city of Morocco.” Charles Rousseau, Droit International Public 175 (1953). Cf. 1 Hackworth, op. cit. 92; Opinion of the Swiss Political Department, 10 Annuaire Suisse de Droit International 238, 245 (1953).
In addition to the native population of about 100,000 (¾ Moslem and ¼ Jews), there are about 30,000 Spanish, 6,000 French, 1,500 English, and 400 American resident foreigners.
13 28 League of Nations Treaty Series 542; 23 A.J.I.L. Supp. 235 (1929).
14 87 League of Nations Treaty Series 211; 23 A.J.I.L. Supp. 281 (1929).
15 See Graham H. Stuart, The International City of Tangier 193 (1931); Hudson, Manley O., “Tangier International Mixed Court,” 21 A.J.I.L. 231 (1927)Google Scholar; Nadelmann, Kurt H., “Twenty-Five Years of Mixed Court of Tangier,” 1 American Journal of Comparative Law 115 (1952).Google Scholar In 1948, more than 3,000 judgments were rendered by the Mixed Court according to Manuel Diaz Merry, Tanger Tratados, Codigos, Leyes y Jurisprudencia de la Zona Internacional 33 (Tangier, 1950). The court exercises judicial control over the constitutionality of acts passed by the International Legislative Assembly of the Zone. Re Aerts (Pro-Radio) and Azerraf (Radio Tanger), Mixed Court, Appellate Division, March 10, 1939, 66 Clunet 670 (1939); 7 Nouvelle Revue de Droit International Prive 284 (1940); [1938–1940] Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases 52; Re Nordlund, Mixed Court, Dec. 20, 1948, 60 Penant Recueil Général de Jurisprudence, de Doctrine et de Législation Coloniales et Maritimes, 1, 62 (1950); [1948] Annual Digest 327.
16 See 2 Hackworth, op. cit. 509.
17 Dahir of the Sultan of Morocco of June 10, 1953, Tangier Zone Official Bulletin No. 479, Aug. 1, 1953, p. 31; Informacién Jurídiea (Madrid, 1953), No. 127, p. 1128; Gutteridge, J.A.C., “The Reform of the Mixed Court at Tangier,” 30 British Year Book of International Law 498 (1953)Google Scholar; Balazuc, G., “La rfiforme judiciaire à Tanger,” 5 Revue Marocaine de Droit 350 (1953)Google Scholar; Decroux, Paul, “Organisation judiciaire de la Zone Internationale de Tanger,” 8 Revue Juridique et Politique de 1’Union Française 380 (1954)Google Scholar.
18 Before the reform of 1953, neither the United States nor Morocco was represented on the Court.
19 As reported in Astrea (Tangier), No. 34, of Jan. 1954, p. 3, for the first year after reorganization one of the French judges and the Dutch and the Swedish judges were assigned to the court of first instance for civil matters.
20 See, e.g., Sadi v. Guesson, Mixed Court, Nov. 8, 1949, Astrea (Tangier), No. 9, Sept.–Oct. 1949, I.C.J. Pleadings, Morocco Case (Prance v. U.S.A.), Vol. I (1952), p. 804.
21 Lal-la Fatma Bent Si Mohamed El Khader and Si Kl Hassan Ben Tahar Ben Sallam et Lhassout (her son) v. Mackay Radio and Telegraph Co., 6 Revue Marocaine de Droit 228 (1954). Noted in 49 A.J.I.L. 267 (1955). Vallet, J., of France, presided.
22 Summary in 49 A.J.I.L. 413 (1955). The court was composed of Diaz Merry, P. J., of Spain, Apostoli, J., of Italy, and Wauters, J., of Belgium. The Zone Attorney, Rodière, of France, had asked for reversal.
23 The Zone has, basically, the French legal system, with some Spanish elements. Stare decisis does not apply in France, and not in Spain after merely one decision. Cf. Herzog, J.-B., Le droit jurisprudential et le Tribunal Suprême en Espagne 115 (Toulouse, 1942)Google Scholar; la Plaza, Manuel de, La Casación Civil 197 (Madrid, 1944)Google Scholar.
24 Act of June 22, 1860, 12 Stat. 73. Cf. Sen. Exec. Doc. No. 34, 36th Cong., 1st Sess. (1860); 2 Moore, Digest of International Law 613 (1906).
25 22 U.S.C. §§ 141–183 (1952).
26 Secs. 153 and 165.
27 Sec. 176.
28 Great Britain allows an appeal from the consular courts in Morocco to the Supreme Court of Gibraltar, with the possibility of a further appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Morocco Order in Council, 1889, as amended, in Statutory Rules & Orders and Statutory Instruments Revised, Vol. VIII (1950), p. 534.
29 22 U.S.C. § 145.
30 See Frank E. Hinckley, American Consular Jurisdiction in the Orient 41 (1906).
31 Extraterritorial Cases (Charles S. Lobingier, ed.), Vols. I (1920) and II (1928).
32 140 U. S. 354 (1891); Casement v. Squier, 138 F. 2d 909 (CCA 9th, 1943). Cf. Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298, 305 (1921) (unincorporated territory). But regarding Fifth Amendment, see Seery v. U, S., 127 F. Supp. 601 (Ct. of Claims, 1955); Turney v. U. S., 115 F. Supp. 457, 464 (Court of Claims, 1953). Cf. Soto v. U. S., 273 F. 628 (CCA 3rd, 1921); Thornberg v. Jorgensen, 60 F. 2d 471 (CCA 3rd, 1932) (unincorporated territory). Respecting occupied territory, cf. Best v. U. S., 184 F. 2d 131, 138 (CCA 1st, 1950) (Fourth Amendment); Fairman, Charles , “Some New Problems of the Constitution Following the Flag,” 1 Stanford Law Review 587 (1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Green, Sedgwick W., “Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States,” 68 Harvard Law Review 781 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Arthur E. Sutherland, Jr., “The Flag, The Constitution, and International Agreements,” ibid. 1374.
38 156 Fed. 759, 762, 1 Extraterritorial Cases 120 (CCA 9th, 1907).
34 This may hold good also for laws for other territories—adding to the difficulties of choice. Cf. Wesley B. Fishel, The End of Extraterritoriality in China 246, note 62 (1952).
35 Act of Aug. 11, 1848, 9 Stat. 276, sec. 4. The Bill had referred to “the common law of the United States,” which was changed to “the common law” after criticism in the Senate that “ … it was well known that there was no such thing known as the common law of the United States.” Senator Badger, April 19, 1848, 30th Cong., 1st Sess., Congessional Globe, Vol. 18, p. 649.
36 Opinion of Sept. 19, 1855, 7 Op. Att. Gen. 495, 503, 504. Cf. Forber v. Scannell, 13 Cal. 242, 285 (1859) (determination of the American law in force in extraterritorial China).
37 See questions by the World Court to U. S. Agent and Agent’s answer, I.C.J. Pleadings, Morocco Case (France v. U.S.A.), Vol. II (1952), pp. 295, 335.
38 Casablanca: in 1951, 22 civil and 75 criminal, in 1952 (first half), 35 civil and 74 criminal; Tangier: in 1951 and 1952 (first half), 14 civil and 30 criminal cases. Ministerial Court Tangier: 4 civil and 4 criminal appeals. I.C.J. Pleadings, Morocco Case (France v. U.S.A.), Vol. II (1952), p. 335.
39 Jeremy Bentham, “Draught for the Organization of Judicial Establishments,” in Bentham, Works (Bowring edition 1843), Vol. IV, p. 317.
40 E.g., Ministerial Court, Tangier, May 8, 1940, 20 Gazette des Tribunaux du Maroc 157 (1940) (non-exercise of jurisdiction for status questions of Moroccan protégés). Cf. Consular Court, Tangier, Dec. 20, 1952, New York Times, Dec. 21, 1952, p. 1, col. 1 (conviction of one Paley for piracy).
41 In re Blanchard's Estate, 29 N.Y.S. 2d 359, 178 Misc. 796, 1941–1942 Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases 263 (Surrogate Court, 1941) (determination by Cairo Consular Court of next of kin of American there deceased); Dored v. Wells, 11 N.Y.S. 2d 258 (City Court, New York, 1939) (full faith and credit for Consular Court, Ethiopia, judgment); Newman v. Basch, 152 N.Y. Supp. 456, 89 Misc. 622 (same court, 1915) (Consular Court, China, judgment).
42 2 Hackworth, op. cit. 493 et seq.
48 At p. 589.
49 159 U. S. 113 (1895). Criticized in Joseph H. Beale, Conflict of Laws $ 343.3 (1935); Herbert F. Goodrich, Conflict of Laws 605 (3rd ed. 1949). Not followed in Johnston v. Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 242 N.Y. 381, 152 N.E. 121 (1926). See Reese, Willis L. M., “The Status in This Country of Judgments Rendered Abroad,” 50 Columbia Law Review 783 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Restatement, Conflict of Laws $ 434, comment b (1934).
45 2 Hackworth, op. cit. 569.
46 See Goodrich, op. cit. 607.
47 304 U. S. 64 (1938). Followed by Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U. S. 487 (1941). See Wolkin, Paul A., “Conflict of Laws in the Federal Courts,” 3 Syracuse Law Review 47, 50 (1951)Google Scholar.
48 Cf. Lenhoff, Arthur, “Reciprocity: The Legal Aspect of a Perennial Idea,” 49 Northwestern University Law Review 752, 760 (1955)Google Scholar; Nadelmann, Kurt H., “Reprisals Against American Judgments?”, 65 Harvard Law Review 1184 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 10 Revista de Derecho Procesal (Spain) 573 (1954).
49 Dahir of Aug. 12, 1913, on Civil Status of Frenchmen and Foreigners in the French Protectorate, Art. 19. P.-Louis Rivière, Traité du Droit Marocain 349 (1948); Alphonse Ménard, Traité de Droit International Priv’ Marocain (1935), Vol. I, p. 127.
50 Dahir of June 1, 1914, Art. 24. Verplaetse, Julian G., Derecho Internacional Privado 719 (Madrid, 1954)Google Scholar.
51 Dahir of June 10, 1953 (note 17 supra), Art. 28. Exequatur by the Court of Appeal is necessary. See Goldschmidt, Werner, Sistema y Filosofia del Derecho Internacional Privado (2d ed. Buenos Aires, 1954), Vol. III, p. 219 Google Scholar; Léaud, A., “Les effets internationaux des jugements dans la Zone de Tanger,” 6 Revue Marocaine de Droit 399 (1954)Google Scholar.
52 Doong Nyi Association v. Grew, 2 Extraterritorial Cases 102, 104 (U. S. Court for China, 1921).
53 Jasper Y. Brinton, The Mixed Courts of Egypt 293 (1930).
54 Encouragement of settlement by mutual agreement or submission to arbitration is prescribed. 22 U.S.C. § 161 (1952).
55 Few complaints received are disclosed. 2 Hackworth, op. cit. 569, refers to an instance where investigation was refused because of finality of the adjudication by the consular court. For cases brought up in the proceedings before the World Court, see I.C.J. Pleadings, Morocco Case (France v. U.S.A.), Vol. I, p. 211 (C.F.M. v. Kirk: question of jurisdiction when defendant had departed from Morocco); p. 222 (Shores v. Amat: enforcement of maintenance order).
56 2 Hackworth, op. cit. 611 (Marcos Toledano v. Haim Toledano, May 20, 1936).
57 Compare the care with which the U. S. courts were set up in occupied territory during the war. Cf. Eli E. Nobleman, American Military Government Courts in Germany (1950).
58 Before the International Jurisdiction, the jury in criminal cases is composed of three members of the nationality of the indicted and of three members of other nationalities. Dahir of June 10, 1953 (note 17 supra), Art. 15. In the French Zone, the assessors in criminal cases are three French and three persons of the nationality of the indicted. Dahir of Aug. 12, 1913, on Assessors in Criminal Matters, Arts. 7 and 11. Caillé, op. cit. 156.
59 Law reform had been urged upon Congress during the administration of President Arthur. Hinckley, op. cit. 75; 1 Wharton, Digest of International Law 814 (1887). For China the situation improved with the creation in 1906 of the United States Court for China. See Bishop, Crawford M., “American Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in China,” 20 A.J.I.L. 281 (1926)Google Scholar.
60 Act of July 1, 1870, 16 Stat. 183. Chester L. Jones, The Consular Service of the United States 56 (1906). Cf. Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law 109 (1836).
61 28 U.S.C. (1954 Supplement) §§ 41, 1252, 1291, 1292, 1294.
62 For the reasons of non-accession, see 2 Hackworth, op. cit. 509; Stuart, op. cit. 221.
63 See Arts. 3 and 7 of the Franco-British Agreement of Aug. 31, 1945, for the Re-establishment of the International Administration of Tangier. British Treaty Series No. 24 (1946); T.I.A.S. No. 2752, p. 9; 9 Hudson and Sohn, International Legislation 653 (1950).
64 Ibid. Cf. Art. 2 of the Amendment of Nov. 10, 1952, to the Franco-British Agreement, T.I.A.S. No. 2752.
65 Convention between France, Great Britain, Italy, and Spain of Nov. 10, 1952, relating to the Reform of the International Jurisdiction of the Tangier Zone. Text and translation in T.I.A.S. No. 2893. Belgium, The Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and the U. S. have adhered to the Convention. T.I.A.S. No. 2893, p. 47.
66 Note 17 supra.
67 Note of the American Embassy to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated Paris, July 8, 1953, T.I.A.S. No. 2893, p. 46. Respecting compatibility of reservations, see Advisory Opinion on the Reservations to the Genocide Convention, [1951] I.C.J. Reports 15; Fitzmaurice, G. G., “Reservations to Multilateral Conventions,” 2 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fenwick, Charles G., “Reservations to Multilateral Treaties,” [1950–1951] Inter-American Juridical Yearbook 37 (1953)Google Scholar; Note, 4 Buffalo Law Review 222, 229 (1955).
68 Juan A. A. Sedillo, nominated by Dahir of Oct. 27, 1953, Tangier Zone Official Bulletin No. 486 of Nov. 15, 1953. Judge Sedillo was sworn in on Nov. 17, 1953, and assigned to the criminal court by the general assembly of the judges. Astrea (Tangier), No. 34 of Jan. 1954, p. 3, col. 2.
69 Art. 3 (4) of the Dahir of June 10, 1953 (note 17 supra), identical with Art. 3 (4) of the Convention of Nov. 10, 1952, note 65 supra.
70 See Decroux, Paul, “Organisation judiciaire de la Zone de Tanger,” 8 Revue Juridique et Politique de l’Union Française 380, 387 (1954)Google Scholar.
71 Not extending to questions of title to real property and of status under Moslem law. Statement of U. S. Agent, I.C.J. Pleadings, Morocco Case (France v. U.S.A.), Vol. II, p. 335.
72 Under Art. 45 of the Act of Algeciras of April 7, 1906, U. S. Treaty Series 456, 34 Stat. 2905.
73 [1952] I.C.J. Reports 215; 80 Clunet 771. See I.C.J. Pleadings, Morocco Case (France v. U.S.A.), Vol. II, p. 130.
74 See Art. 45 of the Dahir of June 10, 1953 (note 17 supra), Art. 45 of the Convention of Nov. 10, 1952, note 65 supra.
75 Act of March 23, 1874, 18 Stat. 23; Act of March 27, 1876, 19 Stat. 662; 22 U.S.C. § 182.
76 Even for the French Zone it can be argued that the renunciations were conditioned upon existence of courts as created by the Dahirs of 1913. See Dissenting Opinion, [1952] I.C.J. Reports 225; 80 Clunet 783 (1953); Decroux, Paul, De l’Application des Lois Nationales au Maroc 19 (Paris, 1955)Google Scholar.