No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The ultimate disposition of some hundreds of million dollars' worth of property of enemy aliens, now under the control of the United States government, awaits a decision. In addition to patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc., the Alien Property Custodian has subjected to control enemy property amounting to nearly 200 million dollars, composed primarily of business enterprises. The United States Treasury has blocked some 330 million dollars worth of the assets of enemy nationals not involving control over specific productive assets.
Many international lawyers hold that international law requires postwar restitution of, or in lieu of restitution compensation for, enemy private property sequestered during a war; and an important question of policy now presents itself. This article, on the basis of long-term considerations, advocates a policy of restitution.
1 Annual Report of Alien Property Custodian, 1942–43, p. 70.
2 Alien Property Custodian, Patents at Work—A Statement of Policy (Jan., 1943), p. 11.Google Scholar
3 For statement of policy in this regard, see Annual Report of Alien Property Custodian, 1942–43, especially p. 66.
4 Treasury Department, Administration of the Wartime Financial and Property Controls of the United States Government (Dec., 1942), p. 26.Google Scholar
5 Final Act, Inter-American Conference on Systems of Economic and Financial Control, Washington, D.C., June 30–July 10, 1942 (Pan American Union, Washington, D.C., Recommendation No. VII).
6 For example, see discussion by Carroll, Mitchell B. and Turlington, Edgar in Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at its 37th Annual Meeting, pp. 72–73.Google Scholar See also Carroll's, article in the American Journal of International Law (Oct., 1943), pp. 628–630.Google Scholar
7 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, International Conciliation (Mar., 1945), No. 409, p. 147.Google Scholar (Quotation is from program of action adopted on January 19, 1945, by a conference of churches at Cleveland convened by the Commission.)
8 Dickinson, John, “Enemy-Owned Property: Restitution or Confiscation,” Foreign Affairs, Oct., 1943, pp. 126–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Speech on “War Claims and the Protection of Property,” in Report of Proceedings of Foreign Property-Holders Protective Committee, Convention of National Foreign Trade Council, Inc., New York City, Oct. 11, 1944, p. 28.
10 U.S. v. Certain Lands in City of Louisville (Circuit Court of Appeals), 78 F. (2d) 684 (1935).
11 Final Act of the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, February 21 to March 8, 1946—provisional English translation, p. 61.
12 Rubin, Seymour J., “Inviolability of Enemy Private Property,” Law and Contemporary Problems, Winter-Spring, 1945, pp. 180–181.Google Scholar
13 The Economist (London), Nov. 6, 1943, p. 603.
14 Final Act, etc., op. cit. supra, footnote 11, at p. 59.
15 Op. cit. supra, footnote 8.
16 Carr, Edward Hallett, Conditions of Peace (London, 1942), p. 128.Google Scholar
17 A Just and Durable Peace; Statement by the Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace Instituted by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America (Mar., 1943), p. 4.
18 Annual Report of Alien Property Custodian, 1942–43, p. 69.
19 Rubin, op. cit. supra, footnote 12, at pp. 173–174.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.