Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:17:03.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nottebohm Judgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Josef L. Kunz
Josef L. Kunz*
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Friedrich Nottebohm was born at Hamburg, Germany, a German national by birth and remained a German national until 1939. Since 1905 he had resided in Guatemala, where he carried on prosperous activities in the fields of commerce, banking and plantation. At the end of March or the beginning of April, 1939, he left for Germany and applied in October, 1939, after the outbreak of the second World War, for naturalization in the Principality of Liechtenstein and was naturalized on October 13, 1939. From this moment on he conducted himself exclusively as a national of Liechtenstein, particularly with regard to Guatemala, where he returned in 1940. On October 19, 1943, he was arrested by Guatemalan authorities and turned over to the armed forces of the United States in Guatemala. He was deported to the United States and interned there for two years and three months. During his internment in this country, in 1944, fiftyseven legal proceedings were commenced against him in Guatemala, designed to confiscate all his movable and immovable properties. When he was released from internment in the United States in 1946 and wanted to return to Guatemala to take up the defense against all the litigations pending against him there, he was refused readmission to Guatemala. In 1946 he went to Liechtenstein, where he has resided ever since. In 1949, three years after he had made Liechtenstein his effective and permanent domicile, his properties in Guatemala were confiscated under Guatemalan law.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , July 1960 , pp. 536 - 571
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1960

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 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 4; digested in 49 A.J.I.L. 396 (1955).

2 See I Seidl-Hohenveldern, “Der Fall Nottebohm,'’ Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft, July 5, 1955, pp. 147-149; Migliazza, A., in 7 Comunicazioni e Studi 582-594 (Milan, 1955)Google Scholar; Loewenfeld, Erwin H., “Der Fall Nottebohm,” 5 Archiv des Völkerrechts 387-410 (1956)Google Scholar; Glazer, Jack H., “Affaire Nottebohm—A Critique,” 44 Georgetown Law J. 313-323 (1955-56)Google Scholar; Mervyn Jones, J., “The Nottebohm Case,” 5 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 230-246 (London, 1956)Google Scholar; unsigned note in 31 N.T.U. Law Bev, 1135-1139 (1956); Makarov, A. N., “Das TJrteil des Internationalen Gerichtshofes im Fall Nottebohm,” 16 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 407-426 (1956)Google Scholar; idem, “ Consideraeiones sobre el derecho de la protección diplomatica,” 8 Revista Espaňola de Derecho Internacional 519-524 (1955); Visscher, Paul de, “L'Affaire Nottebohm,” 60 Revue Generate de Droit International Public 238- 266 (1956)Google Scholar; Bastid, Suzanne, “L'Affaire Nottebohm devant la Cour Internationale de Justice,” 45 Revue Critique de Droit International Prive; 607-633 (1956)Google Scholar; J. H. W. Verzijl, in 3 Nederlands Tijdskrift voor Internationaal Recht 33 ff. (1956); Maury, , “ L‘ Arrêt Nottebohm et la Condition de la Nationalité Effective,” 23 Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Private recht 515 ff. (1958)Google Scholar; Aguilar Navarro, Mariano, “ Reglementación internacional del Derecho de Nacionalidad,” 10 Revista Espaňola de Derecho International 333-372 (1957)Google Scholar. These writings will further be quoted only with the names of their authors. See also Hans Goldschmidt in 1960 Fordham Law Rev. 689 ff.

3 Judges Klaestad and Bead, and Ad Hoc Judge Guggenheim. The majority of the Court was composed of: Judge Hackworth, President; Judge Badawi, Vice President; Judges Basdevant, Zoriĉić, Hsu Mo, Armand-Ugon, Kojevnikov, Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, Moreno Quintana, Córdova; Ad Hoc Judge M. Garcia Bauer.

4 See the critical remarks in 1 Georg Dahm, Völkerrecht 446, note 1, 447, note 6, 458, 459, note 13 (1958); Verdross-Zemanek, Volkerrecht 237, note 3 (4th ed., 1959); A. P. Sereni, 2 Diritto Internationale 691 ff. (1958), states correctly that there must be “some link,” but it cannot be said in general terms what the criteria of this link must be which justify the grant of nationality for international purposes; he adds that “even the most tenuous links are sufficient to justify the grant of nationality to one who voluntarily applies for it .”

5 H. F. Van Panhuys, The Eole of Nationality in International Law (1959).

6 G. Battaglini, La Protezione Diplomatica delle Società 216-217 (1957). Professor McDougal, in 4 South Dakota Law Rev. 45-46 (1959), quotes the Nottebohm Judgment as “sufficiently dramatic” and seemingly with approval, but does not go into any analysis. But now, apropos his violent attack on the link theory with regard to the nationality of ships, he also has his doubts about the Nottebohm Judgment; see 54 A.J.I.L. 36-40 (1960). Rode, Z. E., “Dual Nationality and the Doctrine of Dominant Nationality,” 53 A.J.I.L. 139-149 (1959)Google Scholar, takes no stand with regard to the Nottebohm Judgment, but only quotes, for the purposes of his study, the dicta of the Court concerning dual nationality.

7 Mario Giuliano, “ La sudditanza degli individui e il suo rilievo nell'ordinamento internazionale,” 8 Comunicazioni e Studi 50-54 (1956), accepts the link theory as ‘'autorevole.” It is surprising that this sharply critical mind does not see that the Nottebohm case has nothing whatsoever to do with the special problem of dual nationality, and that there is no basis at all in positive international law for the link theory in the case of an individual who, at all times, had only one nationality.

8 See Philip C. Jessup, in Proceedings, Second Summer Conference on International Law, Cornell Law School, June 23-25, 1958, pp. 43, 49.

9 Sir Hersch Lauterpaeht, The Development of International Law by the International Court (1958). The discussions on pp. 13, 15, 349 all refer to the Nottebohm Judgment of 1953, with which we are not concerned here.

10 “A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the broadening spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day where a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed.” Charles Evans Hughes, The Supreme Court of the United States 68 (1928).

11 Lauterpacht, op. cit. 398.

12 Ibid 62.

13 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 28.

14 See, e.g., People of State of New York ex rel. Halvey v. Halvey, 330 U.S. 616, where the U. S. Supreme Court stated: “The narrow ground on which we rest the decision makes it unnecessary to consider several other questions argued. “ At the 1959 Neuchâtel Session of the Institut de Droit International, during discussion of Art. 15, No. 15 of the Draft Resolution on Arbitration in Private International Law, an article which states that foreign arbitral awards shall not be recognized, “lorsque la sentence n ‘ a pas pronounce sur toutes les conclusions des parties,” Lord McNair stated that this point could not be accepted by a lawyer of a common law country.

15 Lauterpacht, op. cit. 37-49.

16 ‘'The Court is not therefore called upon to deal with the other pleas in bar put forward by Guatemala or the Conclusions of the Parties other than those on which it is adjudicating in accordance with the reasons indicated above.” [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 26.”

17 ''The present task of the Court is limited to adjudicating upon the admissibility of the claim of Liechtenstein in respect of Nottebohm on the basis of such reasons as it may itself consider relevant and proper.” laid. 16; see also p. 17.

18 Bowen, L. J., in Leeson v. General Council of Medical Education (1889), 43 Ch. D. 366, 385.

19 Ad Hoc Judge Guggenheim, [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 60-61.

20 The points 2 and 3 made in the text have been fully considered by Van Panhuys.

21 Loc. cit. 238.

22 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 30-31.

23 Ibid. 38.

24 [1952] I.C.J. Rep. 45.

25 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 6.

26 Ibid. 24-25.

27 Ibid. 32.

28 Ibid. 65.

29 Lauterpacht, op. cit. 113-115.

30 Itis interesting to see the reasons given by the Court for such joinder: “when the interests of the good administration of justice require it “ (P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 75 (1939), p. 56); “where the preliminary question at issue appears to be entirely bound up with the facts, adduced by the Application, and can only be decided on the basis of a full knowledge of these facts, such as can only be obtained from the proceedings of the merits” (P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 52 (1933), p. 14).

31 “This question of fraud is so closely connected with the merits of the case that it cannot be decided apart from them and without any appraisal of the various relevant facts which may be disclosed by a consideration of the merits… . “ [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 33.

32 Ibid. 38.

33 ibid. 65.

34 Ibid. 34.

35 Ibid. 35. Mervyn Jones, loc. cit. 234, asks: “ I s it the case that under international law a claim may be rejected a limine by an international tribunal without reference to the merits, although the procedural rules concerning the nationality of the claim have been complied with?” See also Van Panhuys, op. cit. 98.

36 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 64.

37 See, e.g., Philip C. Jessup, 49 A.J.I.L. 57 (1955); Glazer, loc. cit. 321; Seidl- Hohenveldern, loc. cit. 149.

38 See dissenting opinions; unsigned note (cited note 2 above), p. 1139. Glazer states that the retroactive effect of the judgment, sixteen years after Nottebohm's naturalization, six years after he had established his permanent domicile in Liechtenstein, is “extremely harsh” and calls the judgment “ bUt a hollow triumph of form.” Loc. cit. 325.

39 Common law courts are careful not to deprive a plaintiff of his only legal remedy. Thus, the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens “ presupposes at least two forums in which the defendant is amenable to process” (Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. 8. 501, 1947); see also Slater v. Mexican Nat. R. Co. (194 U. S. 120): “the defendant can always be found in Mexico“; and, e.g., Bramwell, B.: “ s o that in all cases there will be a remedy” (Crawley v. Isaacs, 1867, 16 L.T. (N.S.) 529,531).

40 U. S.-Venezuelan Arbitrations, 1903, Ralston, Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, p.. 34.

41 U. S. ex. rel. Flegenheimer v. Italy, Sept. 20, 1958, excerpted in 53 A.J.I.L. 944- 958 (1959).

42 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 50 ff.

43 Ibid. 28-29.

44 Ibid. 35-37.

45 See H. W. Briggs, The Law of Nations 452-524 (2nd ed., 1952); A. Verdross and K. Zemanek, Völkerrecht 234-247 (4th ed., 1959); 1 Dahm, Volkerrecht 444-495 (1958); Eundstein, 16 Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht 14 ff.; Naujoks, 6 Temple Law Quarterly 451 (1932), 7 ibid. 176 (1953); Makarov, Allgemeine Lehren der Staatsangehörigkeit (1947).

46 This writer developed these ideas thirty-two years ago in his study, ‘'Zum Problem der doppelten Staatsangehörigkeit,” 2 Zeitsehrift für Östrecht 401-437 (1928). These ideas are today to a wide extent recognized by the literature; they are strongly emphasized by Van Panhuys, op. cit. 149 ffi. See also Josef L. Kunz, “ L a Teoria General del Derecho International,” Academia Interamericana de Derecho Comparado e International, Cursos Monográficos, Vol. II, 1952, pp. 327-444.

47 Not necessarily to the protecting state as regards the protected state, P.C.I.J., Ser. B, No. 4 (1923); nor to the Mandatory Power with regard to the inhabitants of a territory under mandate, League of Nations Council, 1923, Official Journal, 1923, p. 604.

48 Draft on the Law of Nationality, 23 A.J.I.L. Spec. Supp. (1929).

49 P.C.I.J., Ser. B, No. 4 (1923).

50 179 L. N. T. S. 89; 24 A.J.I.L. Supp. 192 (1930).

51 Hague Convention, 1930, Arts. 1, 2; Stoeck v. Public Trustee, [1921] 2 Ch. 67.

52 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 17-20.

53 op. cit. 66.

54 Clive Parry, “The Duty to Recognize Foreign Nationality Laws” (Makarov Festgabe, 1958, Vol. I, pp. 337-368), deals with a different problem, namely, the recognition of foreign nationality laws by a state in shaping its own law of nationality.

55 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 46-48.

56 Ibid. 15-16.

57 Mavrommatis Case, P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 5, p. 30.

58 Judge Read, [1955] I.O.J. Rep. 36.

59 Ibid. 40.

60 gee Mervyn Jones, loc. cit. 237; Lauterpacht, op. cit. 162; Van Panhuys, op. cit.

61 Judge Bead, [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 37-38.

62 Judge Klaestad, ibid. 32-33; Ad Moo Judge Guggenheim, ibid. 58, 64-65.

63 Ibid. 25, 26.

64 Ibid. 20. ‘'The present Judgment does not decide the question, in dispute between the Parties, whether the naturalization granted to Mr. Nottebohm was valid or invalid either under the national law of Liechtenstein or under international law.” Judge Klaestad, ibid. 30.

65 Ibid. 20-21.

66 Mario Giuliano, a dualist, speaks, therefore, of a “mera libertà, di fatto .”

67 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 23.

68 Ibid. 24.

69 Ibid 23.

70 Ibid 17.

71 Ibid. 39.

72 See U.N. Legislative Series: Laws Concerning Nationality, U.N. St./Leg./Ser. B 4, and Add. 1 and 2 (Sales No. 1954 VI ) , 1954, as well as Supplement, St./Leg./ Ser. B 9 (Sales No. 59,3). We find, e.g. the following Cambodian Statute of 1954, Art. 21: “ L a nationality cambodgienne est la lien à la fois spirituel et politique qui unit une personne physique ou morale á l’ Etat cambodgien.”

73 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 22.

74 Loc. cit. 236.

75 Ibid., note 12.

76 “ A special nationality law exists in the Soviet Union in enabling aliens, whatever their nationality or race, to acquire Soviet Union citizenship. No special conditions have to be fulfilled for that purpose.” Kojevnikov, in 1952 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 7 (U.N., 1958).

77 See footnote 4 above.

78 Op. cit. 156.

79 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 29.

80 Ibid. 44.

81 Ibid. 56. See also Mervyn Jones, loc. cit. 239-240.

82 This point is made by Judge Klaestad. [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 30.

83 See the detailed statement in Glazer, loc. cit. 323.

84 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 22.

85 Ibid. 46.

86 Ibid. 24-26.

87 Ibid. 55-56.

88 Ibid. 25-26.

89 Ibid. 31.

90 Ibid. 44-46.

91 Ibid. 56, 61-62.

92 Ibid. 21-23.

93 Ibid. 21-22.

94 Ibid. 22.

95 Ibid.

96 Ibid. 41.

97 Ibid. 59-60.

98 [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 276 ff.

99 The U. S.-Italian Peace Commission considered the Bancroft Treaties carefully and took them for the basis of its decision, but under completely different circumstances: for there the two nationalities claimed were those of two states bound by a Bancroft Treaty, and the time involved was a time when this treaty was fully in force.

100 Great Britain, [1927] 2 Ch. 533.

101 U. S.-Germany, Mixed Claims Commission, 1925. Decisions and Opinions of the Commission 628; 20 A.J.I.L. 595 (1926).

102 See, e.g., Baron Frederic de Born v. Jugoslavia, Hungary-Jugoslavia, Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, 1926, 3 Recueil des Decisions des Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes 501.

103 Work cited note 45 above, p. 516.

104 Op. cit. 73-81.

105 Tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, 1912, James Brown Scott, Hague Court Reports, 1916, p. 284.

106 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 22.

107 Ibid. 42.

108 ibid. 59.

109 Jules Basdevant, Conflits de Nationalité dans les Arbitrages Vénézuéliens de 1903- 1905 (1909).

110 Op. cit. 78.

111 Loc. cit. 242.

112 Institut de Droit International, 1931, 1932; H. Lauterpacht, International Law and Human Rights 27 (1950).

113 P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 2, p. 12.

114 P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 76, p. 16.

115 Lauterpaeht, op. cit. 183.

116 P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 76, 1939, p. 16.

117 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 24.

118 Ibid. 30.

119 Ibid. 46.

120 Ibid. 53-54.

121 Loc . cit. 231, 243.

122 Glazer, loc. cit. 314.

123 Op. cit. 75, 19.

124 Ibid. 155-220.

125 Proceedings, Second Summer Conference on International Law, Cornell Law School, 1958, pp 146-147.

126 Op. cit. 76.

127 Institut de Droit International, Annuaire, 1957, Vol. I, pp. 169-171. See also E. Giraud, ibid. 272-273.

128 Op. cit. 22.

129 [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 23.

130 Ad Hoc Judge Guggenheim, ibid. 63.

131 [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 174; 43 A.J.I.L. 589 (1949).

132 See Karl Doehring, Die Pflicht des Staates zur Gewährung diplomatischen Sohutzes (1959).

133 Convention on Refugees, 1951; Convention on Stateless Persons, 1954.

134 [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 266; 45 A.J.I.L. 179 (1951).

135 [1951] I.C.J. Rep. 71; 45 A.J.I.L. 781 (1951).

136 P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 10 (1927).

137 Loo. cit. 239.

138 Geneva “Convention on the General Regime of the High Seas, 1958, 52 A.J.I.L. 842 (1958).

139 Loc. cit. 243.

140 Rivista di Diritto Internazionale, 1956, pp. 70-90; digested in 50 A.J.I.L. 154 (1956).

141 It is interesting to note that the ‘'Third Member,'’ i.e., the deciding judge, in this case was Professor Georges Sauser-Hall (Switzerland), who had also been Counsel to the Agent of Liechtenstein in the Nottebohm case.

142 53 A.J.I.L. 944 at 957 (1959).

143 U.N. Laws concerning the Nationality of Ships, St./Leg./Ser./B/5 and Add. 1, 1956, I ; Supp., St./Leg./Ser./B/8. 1959, pp. 113-134.

144 See ‘'The Effect of U. S. Labor Legislation on the Flag of Convenience Fleet,'’ 69 Yale Law ,T. 498-530 (1960).

145 It is from this angle that the International Labor Organization was occupied with this problem.

146 U.N. General Assembly, 11th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/3159); 51 A.J.I.L. 154 at 168 (1957).

147 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/L. 53; 52 A.J.I.L. 842 at 843 (1958).

148 Max S0rensen, The Law of the Sea (International Conciliation, No. 520, 1958); see also Philip C. Jessup, “The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,” 59 Columbia Law Rev. 234-268 at 255-257 (1959).

149 Myres S. McDougal, William T. Burke and Ivan A. Vlasic, “ T h e Maintenance of Public Order at Sea and the Nationality of Ships,” 54 A.J.I.L. 25-116 (1960).

150 Ibid. 41.

151 Loc. cit. above, note 149.

152 On June 8, 1960, the Court handed down its Advisory Opinion, in which it held that the Maritime Safety Committee was not constituted in accordance with the Convention establishing the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, and that, under Article 28(a) of that convention relating to the constitution of the Committee, the largest ship-owning nations were those having the largest registered ship tonnage.