1 Rechtbank Amsterdam, Dec. 22, 1958, 1959 Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (hereinafter N.J.), No. 73; Hof Amsterdam, June 4, 1959, 1959 N.J. No. 350. Pertinent Indonesian enactments are reprinted in English in 5 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht 230-232 (1958), and 6 (bid. 290-310. The measures in question are critically discussed in an editorial by the Board of Editors, “The Measures Taken by the Indonesian Government Against Netherlands Enterprises,” 5 ibid. 227 (1958), and in Opinions by Lord McNair, 6 ibid. 218; Eolin, ibid. 260, and Verdross, ibid. 278 (1959).

2 Landgericht Bremen, April 21, 1959, 1959 Aussenwirtschaftsdienst des Betriebsberaters 105; Oberlandesgericht Bremen, Aug. 21, 1959, ibid, at 207 (abridged). These decisions have recently been approved by eminent authority. Kegel, Internationales Privatrecht 354 (1960).

3 Domke, , “Indonesian Nationalization Measures before Foreign Courts,” 54 A.J.I.L. 305 (1960).Google Scholar

4 Ibid. at 323.

5 See Kegel in 4 Soergel, Biirgerliches Gesetzbuch 55-60 (8th ed., 1955), citing numerous decisions and further authorities; Beitzke in Achilles-Greiff, Biirgerliches Gesetzbuch 1142-1143 (20th ed., 1958).

6 See generally 4 Babel, The Conflict of Laws, A Comparative Study 30 ft. (1958).

7 Art. 30 of the Introductory Law to the German Civil Code provides: ‘ ‘ The application of a foreign law is excluded if such application is offensive to good custom [contra bonos mores] or to the purpose of a German law.” (This writer's translation.) See note 12 below.

8 See 1 Schnitzer, Handbueh des Internationalen Privatrechts 225-248 (4th ed., 1957), with numerous further references; Nussbaum, Principles of Private International Law 110-127 (1943). Cf. Ehrenzweig, , “ The Lex Fori—Basic Rule in the Conflict of Laws,” 58 Mich. Law Eev. 637, 671-676 (1960).Google Scholar

9 Art. 38 (1) (c), I.C.J. Statute.

10 However, even if it were a general rule of public international law that title to property is governed by the lex rei sitae, the question would still remain whether this general rule is subject to exceptions where the lex rei sitae is contrary to another norm of public international law.

11 As to the interrelationship between public and private international law, see’ Nussbaum, op. cit. note 8 above, at 20-26; Stevenson, “ The Relationship of Private International Law to Public International Law,” 52 Columbia Law Eev. 562 (1952).

12 German courts are rather reluctant to resort to the exception of public policy. See, for instance, 22 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen 162 (1956), reprinted in English in Schlesinger, Comparative Law 471, 473-476 (2d ed., 1959) ; Schnitzer, op. cit. note 8 above, at 242-244.

13 Although German private international law is at least in principle based upon nationality and classifies some property rights in accordance therewith—e.g., family property and decedents’ estates, Arts. 15, 19, 24, and 25 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code—conflict with the lex rei sitae is generally avoided by Art. 28 of the Introductory Law, which provides that special private international law rules of the lex rei sitae shall always prevail. For illustrations, see Baade, “ T h e Netherlands Private International Law of Succession and the German Courts,” 6 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Eecht 174, 176-177 (1959); id., “ Anerbenrecht und Ausländererbf olge,” 1959 Schleswig-Holsteinische Anzeigen 33. Thus, it is quite unlikely that there could be, under German private international law, a situation leading to the displacement of the lex rei sitae without resort to public policy.

14 See generally 1 Oppenheim, International Law 267 (8th ed., Lauterpacht, 1958); Mann, F. A., “The Sacrosanctity of Foreign Acts of State, “ 59 Law Quarterly Eev. 42, 155 (1943)Google Scholar; Zander, , “The Act of State Doctrine,” 53 A.J.I.L. 826 (1959)Google Scholar; J. N. Hyde, “ The Act of State Doctrine and the Rule of Law,” ibid. 635; Dahm, “Völkerrechtliche Grenzen der inländischen Gerichtsbarkeit gegenüber ausländischen Staaten,'’ Festschrift fur Arthur Nikisch 153, 175-182 (1958) ; cf., in defense of the act of state doctrine, Reeves, , “ The Act of State Doctrine—A Reply,” 54 A.J.I.L. 141 (1960)Google Scholar; and King, “ Sitting in Judgment on the Acts of Another Government,” 42 ibid. 811 (1948).

15 See the British, United States, and Netherlands decisions cited below, notes 184, 188-190, 192.

16 This is ably demonstrated by the authors first cited note 14 above; further discussion of the pertinent materials would be repetitious. For reasons indicated below, however, this author does not share the view frequently advanced by the opponents of the act of state doctrine, that foreign acts of state “violative” of international law, more particularly foreign “confiscations,” must be refused recognition under public international law.

17 See generally 1 Ehrenzweig, Conflict of Laws 159-164 (1959); 2 Schnitzer, op. cit. note 8 above, at 900-954.

18 See, for instance, Government of India v. Taylor, [1955] 1 All E.E. 292 (H.L.); F. A. Mann, “ öffentlich-rechtliche Ansprüche im internationalen Kechtsverkehr,” 21 Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 1 (1956); Ehrenzweig, op. cit. note 17 above, at 167-168; Gihl, “Lois politiques et droit international privé,” 83 Hague Academy Recueil des Cours 163 (1953, II ).

19 See Sack, “Les reclamations contre les Soviets (1918-1938),” 20 Revue de Droit international et de Législation comparée 5, 286 (1939), for a detailed account of the history of negotiations between the Soviet Union and other countries with respect to Soviet nationalizations.

20 The Soviet view, as for instance stated by the Soviet representative at the London Suez conference on Aug. 17, 1956, is that nationalization—presumably barring specific treaty obligations to the contrary—“falls exclusively within the internal competence” of sovereign states. See The Suez Canal Problem 96, 97 (Department of State Pub 6392, 1956).

21 See, for instance, Katzarov, “La propriété privée et le droit international public,” 84 Journal du Droit international (hereinafter cited as Clunet) 6 (1957); Bystricky, “Zu einigen Problemen des internationalen Eechts im Zusammenhang mit der sozialistischen Nationalisierung,” in Wiemann, ed., Fragen des Internationalen Privatrechts 92 (1958). The views of lawyers from Socialist states on the question of nationalization are critically discussed by Seidl-Hohenveldern, ‘ ‘ Communist Theories on Confiscation and Expropriation,” 7 A. J. Comp. Law. 541 (1958). A case study in point is Sipkov, “Postwar Nationalizations and Alien Property in Bulgaria,” 52 A.J.I.L. 469 (1958).

22 Even in “Western” countries, the existence of a rule of general customary international law obligating an expropriating state to pay compensation for the expropriation of aliens’ property is increasingly subjected to doubt. See Friedman, Expropriation in International Law (1953); Gould, An Introduction to International Law 467-469 (1957); Langen, “Einige überlegungen zu Hermann J. Abs’ Schrift ‘Der Schutz wohlerworbener Bechte im internationalen Verkehr als europaische Aufgabe,’ “ 1957 Becht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 66.

23 The assertion that full compensation is due for general expropriations is increasingly rejected in international legal literature. See Oppenheim, op. oit. note 14 above, at 352; Dahm, 1 Völkerrecht 515-517 (1958); von der Heydte, 1 Völkerrecht 280 (1958); La Pradelle, Beport of January 20, 1950, on “Effets internationaux des Nationalizations,” 43 Annuaire de 1'Institut de Droit International 67, 69 (1950). But see Verdross and Zemanek, “Völkerrecht 289 (4th ed., 1959), defending the principle of “voile und sofortige Entschädigung,” as against Verdross, Völkerrecht 291-292 (3d ed., 1955), approving the principle of taking into consideration the financial situation of a state nationalizing industry, banks, and lands.

24 Including property interests such as shares in enterprises of the nationalizing state ; see Baade, Diplomatic and Treaty Protection of Nationals Who are Shareholders in Legal Entities Organized or Created Under the Law of a Foreign State Against Action of the Creator State with Respect to Such Entities (Thesis, Duke University Law School, 1955).

25 However, even Socialist states (other than the Soviet Union and the Peoples’ Republic of China) have concluded numerous agreements with non-Socialist states for the compensation of aliens affected by post-World War II expropriations. See Bindschedler, ‘ ‘ La protection de la propriété privfié en droit international public,'’ 90 Hague Academy Recueil des Cours 173, 252-271 (1956, II) ; Foighel, Nationalization. A Study in the Protection of Alien Property in International Law, tables at 127-133 (1957).

26 As to set-offs see Chorz?w case (Indemnity; Merits), P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, 62 (Germany v. Poland, 1928) ; as to counterclaims, National City Bank v. Republic of China, 348 U.S. 356 (1955); High Commissioner for India v. Ghosh, [1959] 3 All E.E. 659 (C.A.); and generally, Baade, “Aufrechnung und Widerklage im Völkerrecht,” 6 Jahrbuch für Internationales Becht 178 (1956).

27 It is here assumed for the sake of argument that the Indonesian measures actually affected rights of Netherlands nationals properly classifiable as property interests. On the facts of the case before the Bremen courts, this would appear to be quite doubtful, to say the least. See Domke, loo. cit. note 3 above, at 308-311.

28 Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, 12 (Greece v. Great Britain, 1924): “By taking up the case of one of its subjects and by resorting to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on his behalf, a State is in reality asserting its own rights—its right to ensure, in the person of its subjects, respect for the rules of international law.” To the same effect, Chorzfiw case (Indemnity; Merits), P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, 28 (Germany v. Poland, 1928): “The rules of law governing the reparation are rules of international law in force between the two States concerned, not the law governing relations between the State which has committed a wrongful act and the individual who has suffered damage.” See also Nottebohm Case, [1955] I.C.J. Eep. 4, at 24; and Dickson Car Wheel Co. case, 4 Int. Arb. Awards 669, 678 (United States v. Mexico, 1931): “The relation of rights and obligations, created between two States upon the commission by one of them of an act in violation of international law, arises only among those States subject to the international juridical system. There does not exist, in that system, any relation of responsibility between the transgressing State and the individual for the reason that the latter is not subject to international law.”

29 In accordance with the “link” theory developed by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm case, nationality has to be more than formal: “real and effective, as the exact juridical expression of a social fact.” Loc. cit. note 28 above. For criticism of this theory, see Goldschmidt, , “Recent Applications of Domestic Nationality Laws by International Tribunals,” 28 Fordham Law Rev. 689, 689-702 (1960)Google Scholar; Kunz, , “The Nottebohm Judgment,” 54 A.J.I.L. 536 (1960).Google Scholar

30 Whether a state will do so depends exclusively upon its own internal law. See Katzarov, , “Hat der Bürger ein Becht auf diplomatischen Schutz” 8 österreichische Zeitschrift fur öffentliches Eecht 434 (1958)Google Scholar; Geek, , “Der Anspruch des Staatsbürgers auf Schutz gegenüber dem Ausland nach deutschem Becht,” 17 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Becht und Völkerrecht 476 (1957)Google Scholar; and Doehring, Die Pflicht des Staates zur Gewährung diplomatischen Schutzes (1959).

31 As to tacit renunciations of rights and claims, see Schwarzenberger, 1 International Law 552 (3d ed., 1957); Oppenheim, op. cit. note 14 above, at 875-876.

32 It is usually thought that post-World War II agreements for compensation, especially so-called “global” or lump-sum settlements, have resulted in a rate of compensation greatly below the value of the assets expropriated. See Schwarzenberger, “The Protection of British Property Abroad,” 5 Current Legal Problems 295, 307 (1952). As the major claimant states generally still maintain claims to full compensation, by concluding such agreements they are at least from their own viewpoints pro tanto renouncing their claims. See note 80 below

33 Note of Dec. 18, 1959, official English translation reprinted in 54 A.J.I.L. 484, 485 (1960).

34 See Verdross, , ‘ ‘ Anfeehtbare und niehtige Staatsverträge,'’ 15 Zeitschrift für öffentliches Eecht 289 (1935)Google Scholar; id., “Niehtige and strafbare Akte in Völkerrecht,” 1949 Juristische Blätter 58; “ Verzijl, , “Lavalidité et la nullité des actes juridiques internationally,” 15 Revue de Droit international (La Pradelle) 284 (1935)Google Scholar; Guggenheim, , “La validité et la nullité des actes juridiques internationaux,” 74 Hague Academy Recueil des Cours 191 (1949, I)Google Scholar. For an attempt to develop generally valid conceptional tools for the description and analysis of nonexistent, void, and voidable jural acts see P. Zepos, “Zur Theorie der Ungültigkeit der Rechtsgeschäfte , “ Festschrift Spiropoulos 461 (1957). See also Morange, , “Nullité et inexistence en Droit International Public,” 2 La technique et les principes du droit public, Etudes en 1 ‘honneur de Georges Scelle 895 (1950).Google Scholar

35 In its judgment of Aug. 11, 1932, on the Interpretation of the Statute of the Memel Territory (of May 8, 1924; 29 League of Nations Treaty Series 85, 95), the Permanent Court of International Justice was careful to observe that the Statute had the dual character of an internal Lithuanian statute and of a treaty, and that the Court was interpreting the Statute only in its latter capacity. After deciding that the dissolution of the territorial Chamber and the ordering of new elections by the Lithuanian Governor without the consent of the Directorate was not permissible under the treaty, the Court prudently added: “The Court … does not thereby intend to say that the action of the Governor in dissolving the Chamber, even though it was contrary to the treaty, was of no effect in the sphere of municipal law. This is tantamount to saying that the dissolution is not to be regarded as void in the sense that the old Chamber is still in existence, and that the new Chamber since elected has no legal existence.” P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 49, at 46. To the same effect Guggenheim, loc. cit. note 34 above, at 200-201; Dahm, op. cit. note 23 above, at 56; Verzijl, loc. eit. note 34 above, at 292-294; Verdross, Nichtige etc., loo. eit. note 34 above, at 59; Mosler, Das Völkerrecht in der Praxis der deutschen Gerichte 7, 41-42 (1957). See also text below at notes 109-126. Cf. Kelsen, , “Sovereignty and International Law,” 48 Georgetown Law J. 627, 635 (1960)Google Scholar, but see note 85 below and text thereat.

36 See notes 14-16 above and text thereat.

37 Ordinarily, not the enactment of legislation but only its application to protected aliens constitutes an international tort. See rger ein Becht auf diplomatischen Schutzf Research in International Law, Responsibility of States for Damage Done in Their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners, 23 A.J.I.L. Spec. Supp. 157, 159-161 (1929).Google Scholar

38 See notes 83-84 below and text thereat.

39 Since The Netherlands is asserting its own right, not that of its nationals (see note 28 above), in the absence of an express or implied assignment for the benefit of such nationals the properties affected would have to be turned over to The Netherlands, not its nationals. This, of course, could only be achieved by maintaining the expropriation and transferring the properties, i.e. by amending, not repealing, the expropriation decrees insofar as these finally vest title in the Indonesian state or in one of its agencies.

40 The term “restitution” is rather unsatisfactory in this connection; see note 39 above. As hereinafter used, it covers the claim of the demanding state (1) to have the property turned over to it; and (2) to have the property returned to its original owners.

41 See notes 20-27 above and text thereat.

42 Such laws have not been as rare as one might think. See Teipel, ‘ ‘ Zitiergesetze in der romanistischen Tradition,” 72 Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung, Bomanistische Abteilung 245 (1955). The classic example is Codex Theodosianus 1,4,3: “Ubi autem diversae sententiae proferuntur, potior numerus vincat auctorum, vel si numerus aequalis sit, eius partis praecedat auctoritas, in quae excellentis ingenii vir Papinianus emineat, qui ut singulos vincit, ita cedit duobus.” Cf. Editorial Comment, [1957] Neue Juristische Wochensehrift 779.

43 Loc cit. note 3 above, at 323.

44 It has been specifically so called by most eminent authority: Seidl-Hohenveldern, “Zur Anerkennung im Ausland vollzogener Enteignungen,” 7 Jahrbuch für Internationales Eecht 381, 384-385. In the same sense: Baade, “Die Anerkennung im Ausland vollzogener Enteignungen,” 3 ibid. 132, 134-135 (1953); Braybrooke, “The ‘Persian’ Oil Dispute,” 29 New Zealand Law J. 92,94 (1953); Gihl, “Two Cases Concerning Confiscation of Foreign Property,” Liber Amicorum of Congratulations to Algot Bagge 56, at 61-62; (1956) Niederer, “Der völkerrechtliche Schutz des Privateigentums,” Festschrift Hans Lewald 547, 552 (1953) ; Rubin, Private Foreign Investment 10 (1956); Foighel, op. tit. note 25 above, at 71; Delson, in Proceedings and Committee Reports of the American Branch of the International Law Association, 1959-1960, at pp. 33, 34-39; see Bheinstein, , “Observations on Expropriation,” 7 A. J. Comp. Law 86, 88 (1958).Google Scholar

45 See Wortley, Expropriation in Public International Law (1959); Kollewijn, “ ‘Nationalization’ Without Compensation and the Transfer of Property,” 6 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Eecht 140 (1959).

46 As to “abuse of right” in public international law, see Berber, , Eivers in International Law 195-210, with numerous further references (1959).Google Scholar

47 This view has most recently been expressed in connection with the Suez Canal controversy when it was maintained by some—quite erroneously, as it turned out—that Egypt would be financially unable to pay sufficient compensation for the expropriation of the Suez Canal Company. See, e.g., the Statement of the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on July 26, 1956, 557 H. C. Deb. (5th Ser.) 1603-1605, reprinted in extract in E. Lauterpacht, “ The Contemporary Practice of the United Kingdom in the Field of International Law—Survey and Comment, II , “ 6 Int. & Comp. Law Q. 126, 134-135 (1957). See also note 164 below and text thereat.

48 See in this connection Kunz, , ‘ * The Mexican Expropriations,'’ 17 N.Y.TJ. Law Quarterly Eev. 327, 342-359 (1940).Google Scholar

49 5 U.S. Foreign Relations 1938 at 674,677.

50 See especially the Mexican note of Aug. 3, 1938, ibid. 679,680. In its note cited note 49 above, the United States merely suggested arbitration as to the measure o£ compensation due under international law. Ibid. 678.

51 English translation in 1 Documents on International Affairs (1938) at 435-437.

52 As quoted in the United States note of April 3, 1940, loo. cit. note 53 below.

53 2 Documents on American Foreign Relations 224, 226 (Jones & Myers, ed., 1940). The same opinion was expressed in this connection by Great Britain. See note 164 below and text thereat.

54 Good background material can now be found in Richberg, My Hero. The Indiscreet Memoirs of an Eventful but Unheroic Life 248-268 (1954).

55 See statement by Secretary of State Hull and exchange of notes, both of Nov. 19, 1941, 5 Dept. of State Bulletin 399, 401 (1941); Agreement of Experts on Compensation for Petroleum Properties Expropriated by Mexico, April 17, 1942, 6 ibid. 351 (1942). As early as March 30, 1938, the Secretary of State had said at his press conference: “This Government has not undertaken and does not undertake to question the right of the Government of Mexico in the exercise of its sovereign power to expropriate properties within its jurisdiction. This Government has, however, on numerous occasions and in the most friendly manner pointed out “to the Government of Mexico that in accordance with every principle of international law, of comity between nations and of equity, the properties of its nationals so expropriated are required to be paid for by compensation representing fair, assured and effective value to the nationals from whom these properties were taken.” 5 U.S. Foreign Relations 1938 at 662.

56 See Briggs, “Towards the Rule of Law United States Refusal to Submit to Arbitration or Conciliation the Interhandel Case,” 51 A.J.I.L. 517 (1957); id., “Interhandel: The Court's Judgment of March 21, 1959, on the Preliminary Objections of the United States,” 53 A.J.I.L. 547 (1959); Jacoby, “Towards the Rule of Law?” 51 ibid. 107 (1958).

57 47 Stat. 1983; U.S. Treaty Series, No. 844; 36 Dept. of State Bulletin 358 (1957).

58 Ibid. at 350, 357.

59 Preliminary Objection 4 (b), reprinted in Interhandel Case (Switzerland v. U.S.), Judgment of March 21, 1959, [1959] I.C.J. Rep. 6,9; see also 53 A.J.I.L. 671 (1959).

60 [1959] I.C.J. Rep. 26. See also Preliminary Objections of the Government of the United States of America 19-20 (June, 1958).

61 For a clear statement to this effect, see Jacoby, loo oit. note 56 above, at 109-110. Professor Jacoby was Assistant Counsel of the United States in the Interhandel case before the International Court of Justice.

62 3 U.S. Foreign Relations 1918: Russia 33. The note was signed by the United States, Japan, France, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Persia, Denmark, Siam, Serbia, China, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, and Greece, and probably also by Norway. See ibid., note 1. The French text is quoted by Sack, loo. cit. note 19 above, at 10-11.

63 So-called Litvinoff Assignment of Nov. 16, 1933, U.S. Foreign Eelations: The Soviet Union 1933-1939 at 35-36.

64 See generally ibid., index under Debts, claims and credits, U.S.-Soviet negotiations.

65 See Sack, note 19 above, passim. Although Great Britain had joined the other Powers in considering the Soviet expropriation measures to be “without value” with respect to British nationals, the validity and effectiveness of these measures with respect to a British national was later sustained in Perry v. Equitable Life Insurance Society, 45 T.L.E. 468 (1929).

66 Especially the Soviet Union, Iran, and Pakistan. The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. mote 20 above, at 97-98, 127-128, 151.

67 Statement of Mr. Lloyd of Aug. 22, 1956, ibid, at 233-234.

68 Statement of M. Pineau of Aug. 17, 1956, ibid. 86, 87-89. M. Pineau conceded that “with certain reservations, the Egyptian government has the right to nationalise ground and installations which are on its territory.”

69 As stated by Mr. Dulles on Aug. 16, 1956, the United States merely ‘ ‘ questioned'’ the right of Egypt to terminate the concession prematurely, but “ reserve (d) its legal position in this respect.” Ibid. 72, 77. Since holdings of United States nationals in 4he Suez Canal Company would appear to have been rather insignificant, it is difficult to see the basis for this formal reservation; the United States also was and is not a party to the Suez Canal Convention of 1888.

70 See Scelle, , “La nationalisation du Canal de Suez et le droit international,” 2 Annuaire Français de Droit international 3, especially 6-7 (1956)Google Scholar, where it is argued that the Suez Canal Company was a ‘ ‘ servitude de domanialité publique'’ not subject to expropriation, and the thorough demolition of this amazing theory by B. de G. La Pradelle, “L'Egypte a-t-elle violé le droit international” 1958 Internationales Recht nnd Diplomatic 20, especially 26.

71 See the statement of Mr. Dulles, loo. cit. note 69 above, and the Tripartite Statement of the French, British, and United States Governments of Aug. 2, 1956, reprinted ibid, at 34-35. So far as can be determined, no attempt has been made by any of these governments to adduce any legal authority for such a unique assertion.

72 Convention Between the Viceroy of Egypt and the Universal Suez Maritime Canal Company, of Feb. 22, 1866, English translation ibid, at 9-16.

73 The Constantinople Convention Respecting the Free Navigation of the Suez Maritime Canal, of Oct. 29, 1888, contains references to the concession agreement cited note 73 above. See the statement of Mr. Lloyd of Aug. 22, 1956, ibid, at 233,234. An English translation of the convention is reprinted ibid, at 16-20. The incorporation theory is discussed and rejected by Huang, “Some International and Legal Aspects of the Suez Canal Question,” 51 A.J.I.L. 277, 286-307 (1957).

74 It is increasingly asserted that concession agreements are contracts sui generis and partake of an international character, sufficient to invoke the principle of pacta sunt servanda. See Huang, loo. cit. above, at 289-296; Schwebel, “International Protection of Contractual Agreements,” 1959 A.S.I.L. Proceedings 266; Verdross, “ T he Status of Foreign Private Interests Stemming from Economic Development Agreements with Arbitration Clauses,” 9 österreichische Zeitschrift für öffentliches Becht 449 (1959). This latter principle is apparently taken by some to be synonymous with the specific enforceability of contracts instead of the actionability of consensual agreements, an assertion which would seem to overlook certain fundamentals of legal history. See, e.g., Seuffert, Zur Geschichte der obligatorischen Verträge (1881); Sharp, “ Pacta sunt servanda,” 41 Columbia Law Eev. 782 (1941). Ulpian says, D. 2,14,7, §4: “nuda pactio obligationem non parit, sed parit exceptionem.” As stated ibid.,§ 7, “ A i t praetor: ‘Pacta conventa, quae neque dolo malo, neque adversus leges plebisscita senatus consulta decreta edicta principum, neque quo fraus cui eorum fiat, facta erunt, servabo.” “ Servabo,'’ of course, refers to the praetor who here promised to give effect to consensual agreements if pleaded by way of defense. A further assertion, said to be “clear … to the objective observer,” is that “ i n practice and in fact, certain transnational business organizations are subjects of international law.” Olmstead, “International Law,” 32 N.Y.U. Law Eev. 1, 8-9 (1957); see also Scelle, loo. cit. note 70 above, at 7-9. For a square holding to the contrary, see note 170 below with accompanying text.

75 This term was used by Mr. Dulles, loo. cit. note 69 above.

76 E.g. Scelle, loo. cit. note 70 above, at 14-15; Finch, “Navigation and Use of the Suez Canal,” 1957 A.S.I.L. Proceedings 42, 47-48.

77 Statement by Mr. Dulles, loo. cit. note 69 above.

78 As originally developed in the statement of Mr. Dulles, ibid. 77-78. See also ibid. 180-181, 289-290, 291-292.

79 See Rauschning, , ‘ ‘ Die Abwieklung des Suezkanalkonfliktes,'’ 8 Jahrbuch für Internationales Eecht 267 (1959)Google Scholar. Relevant materials are reprinted ibid. 348-357, and in 54 A.J.I.L. 493-519 (1960).

80 Becker, , ‘ ‘ Just Compensation in Expropriation Cases: Decline and Partial Recovery,” 1959 A.S.I.L. Proceedings 336, 338-343.Google Scholar

81 E.g. Becker, loo. cit. above. His criticism of the partial compensation rule in nationalization cases (of. note 23 above) culminates in a call upon “ the American international lawyer and his foreign colleagues … to counteract attacks upon this fundamental principle [of full compensation] by those who would compromise it .” Ibid, at 343.

82 E.g., Scelle, loo. cit. note 70 above; Finch, loo. cit. note 76 above.

83 Chorz?w Factory (Jurisdiction), P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9 at 21 (Germany v. Poland, 1927).

84 Corfu Channel Case, Great Britain v. Albania, [1949] I.C.J. Rep. at 23. See generally Schwarzenberger, op. eit. note 31 above, at 562-564.

85 Kelsen, ‘ ‘ Unrecht und Unrechtsfolge im Völkerrecht,'’ 12 Zeitsehrift für öffentliches Recht 481, 549-560 (1932); id., Principles of International Law 20-23 (1952).

86 See Degenkolb, , “Der spezifische Inhalt des Schadensersatzes,” 76 Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 1 (1890)Google Scholar; Dawson, “Specific Performance in France and Germany,”

87 Mich. Law Rev. 495 (1959). 87 Szladits, , ‘ ‘The Concept of Specific Performance in Civil Law,” 4 A. J. Comp. Law 208 (1955).Google Scholar

88 Gai TV §48. See Broggini, Iudex Arbiterve. Prolegemena zum Officium des römischen Privatrichters 97-103, 144-159 (1957); Kaser, Das Römische Privatrecht 408-413 (1955); “Wenger, Institutes of the Roman Law of Civil Procedure 143-153 (Fisk transl., 1940).

89 See Wenger, op. cit. above, at 313-314.

90 See generally Millar, Civil Procedure of the Trial Court in Historical Perspective 419-480 (1952).

91 See generally, 5 Corbin on Contracts §§990 to 1251 (1951). See also Holmes, , “The Path of the Law,” 10 Harv. Law Rev. 457, 462 (1897)Google Scholar: “The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction that you must pay damages if you do not keep it—and nothing else. If you commit a tort, you are liable to pay a compensatory sum. If you commit a contract, you are liable to pay a compensatory sum unless the promised event comes to pass, and that is all the difference.” For comment and criticism, see Barbour, , “The ‘Right’ to Break a Contract,” 16 Mich. Law Rev. 106 (1917)Google Scholar; Gebhardt, “ Pacta sunt servanda,” 10 Modern Law Rev. 159 (1947).

92 See, for instance, Pollock & Mulla, Indian Contract and Specific Relief Act 405, 747, 760, 785 (6th ed., 1931).

93 Grotius, Inleydinge tot de Hollantsche Begts-Geleertheyt 239: “ But although under the natural law, a person has to do that which he has promised, if such is possible, yet in civil law he can nevertheless free himself of his obligation by paying to the other contracting party the value of the latter's interest, or a fine, if one has been agreed upon for the case of nonperformance.” (ed. Groenewegen van der Made, Amsterdam, 1667; this writer's translation). This book was first published in 1631. The 1667 edition contains an editorial annotation where it is stated that the non-performing party can “huydensdaegs … precijs gedwonghen werden” to fulfill his obligation. Ibid, at 239, note 94.

94 Prussian Code of 1794, §§270,276 I, 5; § 79 I 6; Austrian Civil Code of 1811, Art. 1323.

95 See Dawson, , loc, cit. note 86 above; Baudouin, “Exécution spécifique des contrats en droit Québecois,” 5 McGill Law J. 108 (1959)Google Scholar. The civil law rule is stated and contrasted to the common law rule in Vasquez v. Superior Court, 78 P.B.B. 707 (1955).

96 See, e.g., Dawson, loc. cit. note 86 above, at 524-525 (Prance).

97 See 1 Soviet Civil Law c. 23, § 10 (Genkin ed., 1950); German translation: 1 Sowjetisches Zivilrecht 493-495 (Such ed., 1953).

98 Pending the enactment of a new civil code, the civil law of Eastern Germany is substantially the same in this respect as that of Western Germany. In the contractual relations of nationalized enterprises, regulated by special legislation, strong emphasis is placed upon specific performance. See Drobnig, , “Der Vertrag in einer plangelenkten Staatswirtschaft,” 1960 Juristenzeitung 233, 239-240 Google Scholar; Pflicke in Grundfragen des Vertragssystems 84, 90 (Hemmerling ed., 1958).

99 See Knapp, , Das Problem der sogenannten realen Erfüllung, 1955 Neue Justiz 463 Google Scholar; cf. Mihaly, , “The Bole of Civil Law Institutions in the Management of Communist Economies: The Hungarian Experience,” 8 A. J. Comp. Law 310, esp. 321-326 (1959).Google Scholar

100 Law on Obligations and Contracts of Nov. 3, 1950; see the articles of Vassilyev, Kochukarov, and Stalev, summarized in French in 2-3 Bulletin of the Economic and Legal Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 230, 234, and 238 (1951, in Bulgarian).

101 As to other forms of satisfaction (apologies etc.), see Schwarzenberger, op. cit. note 31 above, at 658-659.

102 See, e.g., Reitzer, La réparation comme conséquence de 1'acte illicite en droit international 171-174 (1938), citing further references; Lais, Eechtsfolgen völkerreehtlicher Delikte 29 (1932). As to the natural law background of specific performance, see note 93 above; as to religious influences, see Coing, , “English Equity and the Denunciatio Evangelica of the Canon Law,” 71 Law Quarterly Rev. 223, 236-237 (1955)Google Scholar; Weinzierl, Rückgabepflicht nach kanonischem Eecht (1931); id., Die Restitutionslehre der Frühscholastik (1936); id., Die Restitutionslehre der Hochscholastik bis zum hi. Thomas von Aquin (1939).

103 As indicated by the U.N. Reports on International Arbitral Awards, the United States and Great Britain are by far the most frequent claimants. The United States was party to 14, and Great Britain to 11, of the 59 arbitrations reported in Vols. 1-3, Int. Arb. Awards (3 of these are duplicated, since they concern British-U.S. arbitrations). Vol. 4 contains solely the decisions of the General and Special Claims Commissions, U.S. and Mexico; Vol. 5, pp. 15-306, the decisions of the British-Mexican Claims Commission; Vol. 6, the decisions of the Arbitral Tribunal, Great Britain-U.S.; of the Claims Commissions, U.S.-Austria and Hungary; and of the Claims Commission, U.S.-Panama. Vols. 7 and 8 contain solely the decisions of the Mixed Claims Commission, U.S.-Germany. Of the 62 arbitrations reported in Vol. 9, 36 involve the United States, and 22 Great Britain, as parties (one overlap).

104 Permanent Court of Arbitration, Judgment of Nov. 11, 1912 (Russia v. Turkey), English transl. in Scott, Hague Court Reports 297, 298 at 315 (1916).

105 Mixed Claims Commission, U.S.-Germany, opinion of Nov. 1, 1923, 7 Int. Arb. Awards 32, 35. See Grotius, De iure belli ac pacis 2, 17, 22 in fine; also note 93 above.

106 Chorz?w Factory (Indemnity; Merits), Judgment of Sept. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17 at 27-28 (Germany v. Poland).

107 See, e.g., Arts. 1,5,9 General Claims Convention, U.S.-Mexico, 4 Int. Arb. Awards 11,13,14; Arts. 1,6,9, Special Claims Convention, U.S.-Mexico, ibid, at 779, 781; Arts. 3,6,9, British-Mexican Convention, 5 ibid, at 7,9,10; Arts. 3,6,9, French-Mexican Convention, ibid, at 313,315,316; Arts. 4,7,10, German-Mexican Convention, ibid. 567, 568, 569.

108 See note 158 below.

109 See generally Scott, , “The International Court of Prize, “ 5 A.J.I.L. 302 (1911).Google Scholar

110 2 A.J.I.L. Supp. 174, 175 (1908).

111 Cf. Scott, loo. oit. note 109 above, at 302; White, ‘ ‘ Constitutionality of the Proposed International Prize Court—Considered from the Standpoint of the United States,'’ 2 A.J.I.L. 490 (1908).

112 Secretary of State Elihu Root to Charles H. Stockton and George Grafton Wilson, Nov. 21, 1908, TJ.S. For. Eel. 1909 at 300, 303-304.

113 Ibid. at 316, 318. See editorial comment, “Proposal to Modify the International Prize Court and to Invest it as Modified with the Jurisdiction and Functions of a Court of Arbitral Justice,” 4 A.J.I.L. 163 (1910).

114 Of Oct. 18, 1909. U.S. Foreign Relations 1910 at 597.

115 Ibid. at 599-600.

116 Ibid. at 600.

117 Additional Protocol to the Convention Relative to the Establishment of an International Court of Prize, Arts. 1, 2. 5 A.J.I.L. Supp. 95, 96-97 (1911).

118 Resolution of the U.S. Senate of the United States Advising and Consenting to the Instrument of Ratification of the International Prize Court Convention and Additional Protocol, Feb. 15, 1911. Ibid. 99.

119 See Scott, , “The Declaration of London of February 26, 1909,” 8 A.J.I.L. 274, 274, and 280 S. (1914).Google Scholar

120 Germany, Argentina, Austria-Hungary, Chile, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Japan, Norway, The Netherlands, and Sweden. Loo. cit. note 117 above, at 98-99.

121 Treaties with Switzerland, 1921, Art. 10; Sweden, 1924, Art. 10; Finland, 1925, Art. 10; Netherlands, 1926, Art. 9; Denmark, 1926, Art. 9; Italy, 1926, Art. 3. See Habicht, Post-War Treaties for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes 20, 26, 147,153, 205,210-211, 431,436, 456,460-461, 527,529 (1931). Clauses to the same effect can be found in numerous other arbitration treaties, especially in those concluded by Switzerland. Habicht rightly observes that the “German-Swiss provision … has since been included in the great majority of post-war treaties.” Ibid, at 996.

122 Ibid, at 936, 947.

123 The purpose of the establishment of the Council of Europe, as stated in the preamble of its Statute of May 5, 1949, 87 U.N. Treaty Series 103, is “ t o create an organization which will bring European States into closer association.” Membership is open to “ a n y European S t a t e “ (Art. 4), and associate membership, to “ a European country” (Art. 5). As stated in the preamble of the Rome Convention for the Protection of Human Eights and Fundamental Freedoms of Nov. 4, 1950, 45 A.J.I.L. Supp. 24 (1951), its signatories are members of the Council of Europe. Art. 66 (1) opens the convention for signature and ratification by members of the Council of Europe.

124 Established pursuant to Arts. 38-56 of the Rome Convention, 45 A.J.I.L. Supp. at 33-36 (1951). The Court was constituted on Feb. 23, 1959. See Robertson, “The European Court of Human Eights,” 9 A. J . Comp. Law 1 (1960); Wiebringhaus, “ E in Internationaler Gerichtshof zum Schutz der Menschenrechte,” 55 Friedens-Warte 1 (1959); Golsong, “Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte,” 1960 Juristenzeitung 193.

125 45 A.J.I.L. Supp. at 35 (1951). See Robertson, loe. cit. above, at 22-23; Golsong, loe. cit. above, at 197-198. Similar clauses are contained in the Benelux Treaty of Feb. 3, 1958 (Art. 48), and the European Convention for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes of April 27, 1957 (Art. 30). 5 European Yearbook 167, 185; 347,357 (1959).

126 See for instance Schwarzenberger, op. cit. note 31 above, at 69, and the numerous authorities cited ibid, at note 8; O'Connell, “The Eelationship between International Law and Municipal Law,” 48 Georgetown Law J. 431, 441-444 (1960).

127 In the absence of an express provision excluding such jurisdiction, the ad hoc submission of any dispute concerning an alleged violation of international law will also be presumed to extend to the question as to the nature and extent of the reparation, if any. Judgment of July 26, 1927, Chorz6w Factory (Jurisdiction), P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, at 23. See Schwarzenberger, op. cit. note 31 above, at 654.

128 Art. 36 (2) (d), I.C.J. Statute.

129 Great Britain v. Iran. Judgment of July 22, 1952, [1952] I.C.J. Eep. 93, 95-96.

130 Liechtenstein v. Guatemala. Judgment of April 6, 1955, [1955] I.C.J. Eep. 4, 7 (alternative demand).

131 Switzerland v. U.S. Judgment of March 21, 1959, [1959] I.C.J. Eep. 9.

132 Germany v. Poland. Judgment of Sept. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17 at 47, as quoted below, text at note 154.

133 See, e.g., Schwebel, loc. cit. note 74 above, at 273. There is eminent authority for this view: Anzilotti, Diritto internazionale 466—468 (3d ed., 1928). Judge Anzilotti was President of the Permanent Court of International Justice when the judgment cited note 132 above was rendered.

134 Cf. Sehwarzenberger, op. cit. note 31 above, at 656-657, and note 158 below. While peace treaties, especially since World War II, have increasingly provided for the restitution of the identifiable properties of nationals of the victorious Powers affected by special war measures, such restitution is not so much a remedy as a form of preferential treatment of private reparation claims. See Baade, “Restitutionen,” to appear in 5 Staatslexikon (1960 or 1961).

135 Arts. 88, 256, Treaty of Versailles. The following description of the Chorz?w controversy and of its antecedents is based upon Kaeckenbeeck, The International Experiment of Upper Silesia 3-26, 43-121, and especially 108-115 (1942). See also P.C.I.J., Series C, Nos. 9-1, 11-1 to I I I ; 13-1; 15-11, containing relevant documents and pleadings.

136 Report of Aug. 6, 1921, quoted ibid, at 7; reprinted in full ibid, at 552-557.

137 See ibid, at 7-11.

138 Ibid. at 16.

139 Ibid, at 15-16.

140 Kaeckenbeeck states from personal experience that “everybody who had anything to do with the drafting of the provisions of Art. 4 soon gave up any attempt at making things clearer out of sheer fear of conjuring up catastrophes.” Ibid, at 42.

141 Convention Germano-Polonaise relative à la Haute Silésie; French and German texts in 2 Reichsgesetzblatt (1922) 238.

142 See Kaeckenbeeck, op. cit. note 135 above, at 42-99; id., ‘’ The Protection of Vested Eights in International Law,” 17 Brit. Tr. Bk. of Int. Law 1 (1936).

143 Arts. 4 and 5.

144 Arts. 6-24.

145 See quotation, note 151 below.

146 Reprinted in extract in P.C.I.J., Series C, No. 9-1, at 25 (French transl.).

147 P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 6 (Case concerning certain German interests in Polish Upper Silesia).

148 P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 7 (Case concerning certain German interests in Polish Upper Silesia. The Merits).

149 Declaration of the representative of the German Government of Jan. 14, 1927, reprinted in P.C.I.J., Series C, No. 13-1 at 120, 121.

150 Judgment of July 26, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9 at 28 (Case concerning the Factory at Chorz?w; Claim for Indemnity; Jurisdiction).

151 Judgment of May 25, 1926, cited above, note 148, at 21: “ i t is certain that expropriation is only lawful in the cases and under the conditions provided for in Article 7 and the following articles; apart from these cases, or if these conditions are absent, expropriation is unlawful.”

152 Loc. cit. note 106 above.

153 For illustrations of the usual understanding of the Chorz?w case, see the authors cited in notes 102 and 133 above. But see note 157 below.

154 Loc. cit. note 106 above, at 46-48. The third paragraph of the extract here reprinted appears ibid, at 47.

155 The French text is authoritative. Ibid, at 65. Note, incidentally, that the word “lawful” in the first paragraph of the above quotation, ibid, at 46, stands for “légitime” in the authoritative French text.

156 See text above at notes 104-126.

157 It seems that at least one author is in agreement with the view here expressed. See Lissitzyn, book review, 53 A.J.I.L. 988 in fine (1959).

158 In the Walter Fletcher Smith case (U.S. v. Cuba), one of the questions submitted to the arbitrator was “According to law shall the land be restored to Smith” 2 Int. Arb. Awards 913, 916. In his award of May 2, 1929, the arbitrator held that the taking of Smith's properties had been accomplished contrary to the Constitution and laws of Cuba. Nevertheless, in the “opinion that it is for the best interests of the parties and of the public,” the arbitrator limited himself to awarding pecuniary compensation. Ibid. 918. In the Martini case (Italy v. Venezuela), the tribunal established under the compromis of Dee. 21, 1920, only had authority to decide “sur la rparation pécuniaire.” 2 Int. Arb. Awards 877, 978, 1001. In its arbitral sentence of May 30, 1931, the tribunal deemed itself empowered to cancel, by way of reparation, a liquidated judgment claim of Venezuela against the Italian company. Ibid, at 1002. In the Forests of Central Rhodope case (Greece v. Bulgaria), the arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations by virtue of Art. 181 of the Treaty of Neuilly had general powers to decide disputes concerning the application of this article. Although in his award of March 29, 1933, the arbitrator found that the claim advanced by Greece was well founded, and although Greece had, subject to the discretion of the arbitrator, asked for restitution, the arbitrator declined this request for practical reasons and awarded pecuniary compensation instead. 3 Int. Arb. Awards 1405, 1407, 1432.

159 See Richberg, op. cit. note 54 above, at 250-252.

160 Particularly the Mexican Eagle Co. ( “ ElAguila“), a Mexican corporation about 85 percent of the shares of which were owned by British subjects; there were also some Netherlands interests in the corporation. Cf. The United States in World Affairs 1938 at 242. The latter fact is apparently overlooked by Kollewijn, loo. cit. note 45 above, at 155, who seemed to view this company as a “national of Mexico.“

161 Cmd. 5758 (1938), at 2,3. See also the Aide-Memoire given by the British Embassy to the State Department Dee. 12, 1938, 5 U. 8. Foreign Relations 1938 at 716-717, and, generally, Wortley, “ T h e Mexican Oil Dispute, 1938-1946,” 43 Grotius Society Transactions 15 (1957).

162 The note seeks to establish the “ arbitrary “ character of the expropriation by stating, inter alia, that “ His Majesty's Government … find difficulty in escaping the conclusion … that the real motive for the expropriation was the political desire to acquire for Mexico in permanence the advantages of ownership and control of the oilfields.” Cmd. 5758 (1938) at 3.

163 See generally in this connection Godfrey, ‘ ‘ The Anglo-Mexican Special Claims Commission,” 49 Law Quarterly Rev. 226 (1933).

164 Cmd. 5758 (1938), at 13,14. See also the Aide-Mémoire cited note 161 above.

165 1 Documents on International Affairs (1938) at 472 (italics added).

166 See The United States in World Affairs 1938 at 246.

167 Cmd. 6768 (1946).

168 3 U.N. Treaty Series 14.

169 Cmd. 7275 (1948).

170 This theory was rejected by the International Court of Justice in its Judgment of July 22, 1952, in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case (TJ.K. v. Iran), [1952] I.C.J. Rep. 93, 111-112.

171 See the British Memorial submitted to the Court on Oct. 10, 1951, I.C.J., Pleadings, Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case 64, especially 74-79, 81-83, 86-93, 93-101.

172 lbid. at 117.

173 The British Government contended that the statement, quoted in note 174 below, was made in the course of negotiations and therefore lapsed with the breakdown of the same. Ibid. 379-382. Since the Court did not reach the merits of the controversy, it failed to rule on this question.

174 A British note of Aug. 3, 1951, to the Iranian Government states: “His Majesty's Government recognize on their behalf and on that of the Company, the principle of the nationalization of the oil industry in Iran.” Ibid, at 314.

175 For details of the Consortium and compensation agreements of Aug. 31, 1954, see Shwadran, The Middle East, Oil and the Great Powers 177-190 (1959).

176 Statement of Mr. Lloyd, Aug. 22, 1956. The Suez Canal Problem, op. oit. note 20 above, at 234.

177 gee notes 5-6 above and text thereat.

178 Burrough, J., in Richardson v. Mellish, 2 Bing. 229, 252 j 130 E.E. 294, 303 (1824).

179 See note 12 above; Paulsen and Sovern, “ ‘Public Policy’ in the Conflict of Laws,” 56 Columbia Law Eev. 969, especially 972 ff. (1956); Sehnitzer, op. cit. note 8 above. Burrough, J., loc. cit. note 178 above, said: “ I , for one, protest … against arguing too strongly upon public policy;—it is a very unruly horse, and once you get astride it you never know where it will carry you. It may lead you from the sound law. It will never be argued but when other points fail .”

180 This would appear to be the prevalent assumption. See Sehnitzer, op. cit. note 8 above, at 231-236.

181 Trib. comm. Marseilles, April 23, 1925, 52 Clunet 391, 393 (1925), aff'd, Cass. (Eeq.), March 5, 1928, 55 Clunet 674 (1928); Cass, civ., March 14, 1939, 66 Clunet 615 (1939); see Batiffol, Traité élémentaire de droit international privé 569-570 (2d ed., 1955). But see note 204 below.

182 See Re, Foreign Confiscations in Anglo-American Law (1951) ; Seidl-Hohenveldern, Internationales Konfiskations- und Enteignungsrecht (1952); Baade, loc. cit. note 44 above, at 135-140; Aubert, “Foreign Expropriations in Swiss Law,” 6 A. J. Comp. Law 577, 579-582 (1957); cf. Schlesinger, op. cit. note 12 above, at 468-469.

183 See Domke, loc. cit. note 3 above, at 314 and note 50 thereat. The Federal Supreme Court has not ruled on the question, but has been careful to limit its decisions denying the extraterritorial effect of East German nationalizations to situations where the property was in Western Germany at the time of the purported nationalization. See, e.g., Bundesgerichtshof, Nov. 12, 1959, 1960 Juristenzeitung 89, with note by Beitzke. For expression of public policy reasons, see ibid. 89-90. It should be noted, incidentally, that East German nationalizations were as a rule carried out before 1949 by the individual East German States or under the auspices of the Soviet Military Administration, so that the problem as to the effect of expropriations by an unrecognized state usually does not arise.

184 Luther v. Sagor, [1921] 3 K.B. 532 (C.A.); Paley v. Weisz, [1929] 1 K.B. 718 (C.A.). In Perry v. Equitable etc., note 65 above, such recognition was extended to Soviet nationalization measures with respect to the property interests of a British subject.

185 Landgericht Hamburg, June 13, 1924, (1925) Ostrecht 165; id., Dec. 26, 1924, ibid. 170; Landgericht Berlin II, 3 Zeitschrift fur Ostrecht 1366 (1929); of. 129 Entscheidungen des Eeichsgeriehts in Zivilsachen 98, 102 (1930).

186 Salimoff v. Standard Oil Co., 262 N.Y. 220, 186 N.E. 679 (1933).

187 See notes 14-18 above and text thereat; Lipper, “Acts of State and the Conflict of Law,” 35 N.Y.U. Law Eev. 234, 235-247 (1960).

188 Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918).

189 Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304 (1918).

190 Eastern States Petroleum Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp., 28 F. Supp. 279 (S.D. N.Y., 1939).

191 See notes 51-55 above and text thereat.

192 Eechtbank Middelburg, Aug. 2, 1938, 1938 N.J. No. 790; Hof Haag, Dec. 4, 1939, 1940 N.J. No. 27; Hoge Eaad, Dec. 7, 1941, 1941 N.J. No. 923; Kechtbank Botterdam, July 31, 1939, 1939 N.J. No. 747, all abstracted in English in 1919-1942 Annual Digest and Beports of Public International Law Cases 16-19. In the case last cited, the Bechtbank stated: “The defendant has argued that this was not a regular expropriation, but a confiscation, and has pointed out that not only the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, but also the Netherlands Government protested against what had happened. There is, however, a profound difference between a diplomatic note, addressed by one sovereign government to another in order to suggest to the latter, on various grounds, the revision of a decision taken, in the interest of its nationals, and the judgment of a Court calling in question the good faith of a foreign government in the performance of its public acts… . “ Ibid. at 19. See also the case noted in 1938-1940 ibid. 25-26, and Adriaanse, Confiscation in Private International Law 71-75 (1956).

193 See text at notes 160-169 above.

194 See note 160 above.

195 See text at note 165 above.

196 Trib. civ. Antwerp, Feb. 21, 1939, noted in 1938-1940 Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases 25.

197 Trib. Venice, March 11, 1953, 1 Foro Italiano 719 (1953); Trib. civ. Rome, Sept. 13, 1954, 1 Foro Italiano 256 (1955); English translation in 1955 Int. Law Rep. 19 and 23.

198 District Court of Tokyo (9th Civ. Div.) 1953, reported in English in 1953 Int. Law Bep. 305; aff'd, High Court of Tokyo (1st Civ. Sec), 1953, Hid. 312.

199 Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., Ltd. v. Jaffrate (The Bose Mary), [1953] 1 W.L.B. 246, 1953 Int. Law Rep. 316.

200 Ibid. 323 (italics added). Since public international law does not contain any pertinent conflict of law rules, any court is free to disregard any foreign law affecting property, if authorized to do so by the forum's conflict of law rules. See text at notes 5-8 above.

201 1953 Int. Law Rep. 328 (italics added).

202 Ibid. 327-328. But see note 65 above.

203 [1956] 1 All E.R. 129, 139-140 (Ch.). As pointed out by B. Lauterpacht, “Be Helbert Wagg: A Further Comment,” 5 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 301 (1956), this conclusion is only a dictum, but, it is submitted, a sound one.

204 See note 181 above and text thereat. But see App. Paris, Dec. 12, 1950, 79 Clunet 1200 (1952); Civ. Seine, July 12, 1954, 82 Clunet 112 (1955). Seidl-Hohenveldern, loc. cit. note 21 above, at 556, note 107, is of the opinion that in view of these decisions, “ the attitude of the French courts has since altered.” However, it has been doubted whether the Cour de cassation is likely to follow the new trend. See Mezger, note, 44 Eevue critique de Droit international privfi 506 (1955).

205 See Ziegel, “Confiscation in English Private International Law,” 6 MeGill Law J. 1, 29 (1959); Dicey's Conflict of Laws 666-668 (7th ed., Morris, 1958); Cheshire, Private International Law 139-142 (5th ed., 1957); Mosler, op. cit. note 35 above, at 42; authors cited note 44 above; and Kegel, op. cit. note 2 above.

206 See Verzijl, “The Eelevance of Public and Private International Law Respectively for the Solution of Problems Arising from Nationalization of Enterprises,” 19 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliehes Recht und Völkeirrecht 531 (1958); Dahm, loc. cit. note 14 above, at 178-181; Adriaanse, op. cit. note 192 above, at 136-142; Wortley, “Observations on the Public and Private International Law Relating to Expropriation,” 5 A. J. Comp. Law 577 (1956); and Kollewijn, loc. cit. note 45 above.

207 1953 Int. Law Rep. 309.