Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:45:46.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Danube Régime and the Belgrade Conference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Josef L. Kunz
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , January 1949 , pp. 104 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1949

References

1 Apart from the Volga.

2 The oldest are the Dutch-Turkish Capitulations of 1680. For a list from 1680 to 1920, see P. M. Ogilvie, International Waterways (New York, 1920), pp. 188–199.

3 Principal works on this topic: E. Carathéodory, Du droit international concernant les grands cours d’eau (1861); Ed. Engelhardt, Du régime conventional des fleuves internationaux (Paris, 1879) ; Van Eysinga, Évolution du droit fluvial international 1815–1919 (Leyden, 1919); idem, Les fleuves et les canaux internationaux (Leyden, 1924); G. Kaeckenbeeck, International Rivers (London, 1918); Lederle, Das Recht der internationalen Gewässer (Mannheim, 1920); H. Wehberg, Die Fortbildung des Fluss- Schiffahrtsrechts im Versailles Friedensvertrage (Berlin, 1919); Rich. Hennig, Freie Ströme (Leipzig, 1926); H. Triepel, Internationale Wasserläufe (1931); Winiarski, “Principes généraux du droit fluvial international,” Hague Academy of International Law, Recueil des Cours, 1933, Vol. III, p. 79 ff.

4 Martens, Nouveau Recueil des Traités, Vol. II, p. 436.

5 Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général, Series I, Vol. XV, p. 770.

6 See, particularly, London Conference, March 13, 1871, Arts. 4–7 (Martens, op. cit., Ser. I, Vol. XVIII, p. 303); Berlin Congress Act, July 1.3, 1878 (Martens, op. cit., Ser. II, Vol. III , p. 449); Convention of London, March 10, 1883 (Martens, op. cit., Ser. II, Vol. IX, p. 392). See also D. A. Sturdza, Recueil des documents relatifs d la liberté de navigation du Danube (Berlin, 1904).

7 There is a rich literature on the Danube régime prior to 1920: J. M. Wolf bauer, Die Donau und ihre wirtschaftliche Bedeutung (Vienna, 1880); E. Bontoux, Le Danube (Paris, 1878); J. A. do Vieq, De Donau quaestie (Thesis, Leyden, 1884); Geffcken, La question du Danube (Berlin, 1883); D. A. Sturdza, La question des Portes de Fer (Berlin, 1889); F. Bittel, Über das Flusschiffahrtsrecht der Donaumündungen (Thesis, Mainz, 1899); 6. Radu, , Die Donauschiffahrt in ihrer völkerrechtlichen Entwiclclung (Thesis, Berlin, 1909)Google Scholar; Demorgny, G. , La question du Danube (Paris, 1911)Google Scholar; Mai’can, J. C., La question du Danube (Thesis, Paris, 1904)Google Scholar; Bleyer, , Die zwischenstaatlichen Fragen des öffentlichen Donaurechts (1916)Google Scholar; L. Luger, Die internationale Rechtsstellung der Donau (Thesis, Wüzburg, 1918); C. J. Baicoianu, Le Danube (Paris, 1917).

8 See Kunz, Josef L., “Experience and Techniques in International Administration,” Iowa Law Review, Vol. XXXI, No. 1 (November, 1945)Google Scholar, pp. 40–57.

9 Berlin Congress Act, 1878, Act 53.

10 See its police regulations, tariffs of navigation dues, pilotage regulations and navigation regulations, Acte public relatif àla navigation des embouchures du Danube jusqu’d Galatz, 1865 (Martens, op. cit., Ser. I, Vol. XVIII, p. 143); Acte additionel, 1881 (Martens, op. cit., Ser. II, Vol. VIII, p. 207, Vol. IX, p. 253).

11 Treaties of Versailles, Arts. 346–353; St. Germain, Arts. 291–308; Trianon, Arts. 275–291; Neuilly, Arts. 229–235.

12 Literature of this period: H. Hajnal, The Danube (The Hague, 1920); Alex. Szana, Die Internationalisierung der Donau (Vienna, 1920); Joseph P. Chamberlain, The BSgime of the International Rivers: Danube and Shine (New York, 1923), pp. 13–134; Boshart, Die völkerrechtliche Stellung der Donau (Thesis, Würzburg, 1924); E. Morpurgo, Danubio, Saggio storico-politico della questione danubiana (Bologna, 1923); Jon G. Vidrasco, La voie navigable maritime du Danube (Bucharest, 1924); Walker D. Hines, Report on Danube Navigation (Geneva: League of Nations, 1925); V. M. Radovanovitch, Le Danube et I’application du principe de la liberté de la navigation fluviale (Geneva, 1920); J. Blociszewski, “Le régime international du Danube,” Académie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours, 1926, Vol. I, pp. 255–340; Henri Hajnal, Le Droit du Danube International (The Hague, 1929); Solms-Braunfeld, Die völkerrechtliche Stellung der Donau (1931); Ottahal, “Die völkerrechtliche Stellung der coneuropdischen und der internationalen Donau-Kommission,” Jahrbuch der Konsularalcademie (Vienna, 1936), p. 56 ff.; Jean Duvernoy, Le régime international du Danube (Paris, 1941); Hadsel, Fred L., “Freedom of Navigation on the Danube,” Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XVIII, No. 468 (June 20, 1948), pp. 787–793 Google Scholar, 797.

13 See Bulletin de la Commission Europeenne du Danube (Galatz, 1927); Réglement de navigation et de police applicable au Bas-Danube (Galatz, 1923); Tarifs des droits de navigation (Galatz, 1928). See also La Commission Europeenne du Danube et son oeuvre de 1865 a 19S1 (Paris, 1931, pp. 526).

13 See Le Danube International, Journal Officiel de la Commission Interalliie du Danube, 1920; Journal Officiel de la Commission Internationale du Danube, 1911. See also Commission Internationale du Danube: Dix Ans de Bigime International sur le Danube Fluvial, 1920–1980.

15 Two German States, one each of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rumania.

16 Great Britain, France and Italy.

17 Conférence Internationale pour l’établissement du Statut Définitif du Danube (Paris, 1921, 2 vols.). This conference published also the following volumes: Conventions et réglements relatifs á la navigation du Danube, 1718–1920 (Paris, 1920); Traités relatifs á la Commission Européenne du Danube (1856–1921) (Paris 1921). See also, Treaties and Conventions relating to Navigation on the Danube, 1815–1947, Department of State, Documents and State Papers, Vol. I, No. 4 (July, 1948), pp. 250–274.

18 Paris, July 23, 1921. It came into force on October 1, 1922. The “River System of the Danube,” according to Art. 2 of the Statute, includes the Morava and Thaya insofar as they form the boundary between Austria and “Czechoslovakia, as well as the Drave, Tisza and Maros.

19 M. O. Hudson, International Legislation, Vol. I, p. 638 ff. See Hostie, J., “Régime des voies navigables d’intérét international,” Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée, Vol. XLVIII (1921), p. 532 Google Scholar; Corthésy, F. , Etude sur la Convention de Barcelone sur le régime des voies navigables d’intérêt international (Thesis, Paris, 1927)Google Scholar.

20 Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria, Art. 34; with Hungary, Art. 38; with Eumania, Art. 36 (Treaties of Peace with Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Roumania and Finland, Department of State Publication 2743, European Series, 27, 1947); this Journal, Supp., Vol. 42 (1948), pp. 192, 241, 267.

21 In his preface (pp. IX, X, XII) to Hajnal, Le Droit du Danube, cited in note 12 above.

22 This aspect is stressed by Duvernoy( op. cit. in note 12 above), who speaks of the “caractére fractionnel,” “le particularisme du droit danubien.”

23 Hajnal speaks of the Commission as a “remnant of the European Concert.’’ The Commission consisted originally only of the six European Great Powers and Turkey; only later was Rumania admitted.

24 See the great number of Rumanians among the writers on the Danube problem. See also, specifically, Const. Teodorescu, Rumänien und die Donauschiffahrt (Thesis, Heidelberg); Armand Lévy, La Russie sur le Danube (Protestation des Roumains) (Paris, 1853); idem, La Roumanie et la liberté du Danube (Paris, 1853); F. V. Holtzendorff, Rumäniens Uferrechte in der Donau (Leipzig, 1883); Felix Dahn, Sine Lame für Rumänien (Leipzig, 1883); G. Jellinek, österreich-Ungarn und Rumänien in der Donaufrage (“Vienna, 1884). In the period after 1920 there were difficulties between Rumania and the European Danube Commission: H. Hajnal, “Le conf.it diplomatique entre le gouvemement de Roumanie et la Commission Européenne du Danube,” Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, Vol. XIII (1926); idem, “La Commission EuropSenne du Danube et le dernier avis consultatif de la Cour,” Revue de Droit International et de Legislation Compare, Vol. IX (3rd ser.), 1928, p. 625; P. C. I. J.: Judgment No. 16, September, 1929, Series A, No. 23; Advisory Opinion, Series B, No. 14.

25 Martens, op. cit., Vol. X (1921), p. 856.

26 Commission des Douches du Danube.

27 But at the Paris Conference of 1921 the representatives of Germany, Austria, Bulgaria and Hungary collaborated on the Statut Définitif du Danube “avec voix consultative.”

28 Reichs-Gesetzblatt, 1936, II, p. 361. See Mosler, H. , “Die internationale Bechtslage der Rhemschiffahrt nach der Note vom 14. November 1936,” Niemeyer’s Zeitschrift, Vol. III (1936), p. 144 Google Scholar.

29 This writer wishes to thank Mr. Walter A. Radius, Director, Office of Transportation and Communications, Department of State, and an American delegate at the Belgrade Conference, for kindly having sent him the texts of the American proposal as well as of the Soviet draft and the convention, the latter two in informal English translations from the Russian and French originals, respectively.

30 See Lenin’s dictum: “Law is politics.”

31 There were 57 such votes.

32 Ambassador Cavendish W. Cannon, chief American delegate, protested at the end of the conference “against Soviet manipulation of the six votes of its puppet States… . The record shows plainly that the Soviet Delegation went to this Conference unwilling to negotiate… . The persistent efforts of the … Western Delegates to engage in genuine negotiations have been rebuffed, sometimes with the most abusive language. Every amendment submitted by the Western Powers has been summarily brushed aside. The meetings of this Conference have been characterized by constant Soviet dictation. The unhappy subservience of the Danubian peoples to Soviet imperialism was never more clearly manifested than at this Conference.” Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIX, No. 480 (Sept. 12, 1948), p. 333.

33 Nothing is more significant as to the change of the American attitude in foreign affairs than the fact that the United States declined the invitation to send a delegate to the Paris Danube Conference of 1921.

34 Ambassador Cannon on Aug. 18, 1948. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIX, No. 480 (Sept. 12, 1948), p. 333.

35 Art. 42 of the Paris Convention of 1921 reads: “… Le présent Statut pourra étre revisé … (by a) … conférence á laqnelle tons les Etats signataires de la présente Convention seront invites á, participer.’’

36 See the declarations of Ambassador Cannon of August 5, 7, 13 and 18, Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIX, No. 476 (Aug. 15, 1948), pp. 1977199; No. 477 (Aug. 22, 1948), pp. 219–223; statement by Mr. Radius, ibid., pp. 223–24; No. 479 (Sept. 5, 1948), p. 283; and No. 480 (Sept. 12, 1948), p. 333. See also the article, “The Issues at Belgrade Were Clearly Drawn,” by Walter A. Radius, Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIX, No. 481 (Sept. 19, 1948), pp. 384–385.

37 Just as in the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission and elsewhere. It is interesting to note that a Communistic state is today the principal champion of the most traditional conception of “sovereignty.”