Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:20:10.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, Whitlock & Co. 383 F. 2d 166.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Alona E. Evans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

NationalizationCubaact of state doctrinenationalization in violation of international lawretaliatory expropriationeffect of Hickenlooper Amendmentconstitutionalityapplication of Hiclcen-looper Amendment to case pending at time of enactmentscope of Presidential power over foreign relations
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , January 1968 , pp. 165 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1968 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Hickenlooper Amendment, which has also been referred to elsewhere as the Sabbatino Amendment or the Rule of Law Amendment, was attached to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1964 and became Section 301(d)(4) of that act. (Pub. L. 88-633, 78 Stat. 1009, 1013.) The Amendment was reenacted in 1965 when the next Congress adopted the Foreign Assistance Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 89-171, 79 Stat. 653) which became law on September 6, 1965. The reenactment contained a slightly different version of the Hickenlooper Amendment, and is found in Section 301(d)(2) of that Public Law. Incorporated into the U. 8. Code it is found at 22 TJ. S. C. §2370 (e) (2). The only change was the substitution of “other right to property” for “other right” in two instances, and the deletion of Proviso 3, which had formerly made the Amendment inapplicable to any case in which the proceedings had not been commenced before January 1, 1966. These changes in no way affect the case before us, and when we have discussed the Amendment throughout our opinion we have made no attempt to differentiate the Amendment in effect from October 7, 1964 from the Amendment, in effect from September 6, 1965 to date. The Amendment, as first adopted, appears here in the text, the reenacted version is incorporated into footnote 20 [not reprinted here]. It is interesting to note that these language changes became law during the 60 day period when the court below was awaiting word from the Executive before ordering the entry of judgment. See footnote 1 in Judge Bryan's as yet unreported supplemental opinion. [272 F. Supp. 836 (1965).]

2 S. Rep. No. 1188, Part I, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. 24 (1964).

3 H. E. Rep. No. 1925, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1964).

4 Note 5 renumbered as note 1 above; note 20 not reprinted here.

5 S. Rep. No. 170, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 19 (1965).

6 S. Rep. No. 170 was filed on April 28, 1965; the opinion below was not filed until July 30, 1965.

7 The Government urged the application of the act of state doctrine before the Supreme Court. On remand before the court below it took the position that the Hickenlooper Amendment was valid and constitutional but did not apply to any pending cases.

8 Not reprinted here.