Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:30:44.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reprisals and the Taking of Private Property

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern
Get access

Extract

When a State takes away foreign-owned property without adequate compensation such State violates a well-established rule of International Law. Obviously, in most cases the State concerned will plead some more or less genuine motive tending to justify its action or, at least, to reduce the amount of compensation due to the former owners. Such pleas may vary widely—they may range from the inevitability of large-scale social reforms to allegations of criminal conduct perpetrated or planned by the former owners. Yet, there seem to exist certain fashions even in this field. Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain, why Cuba has followed Indonesia in attempting to justify its confiscations of foreign property as a resort to “reprisals.” The success which Indonesia obtained with this plea does not appear to be so convincing as to invite imitation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 9 , Issue 4: Special Issue: De Conflictu Legum, Essays Presented to RD Kollewijn and J Offerhaus , October 1962 , pp. 470 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1962

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. Kollewijn, , “Nationalization”Google Scholar without Compensation and the Transfer of Property, this Review (1959), p. 143.Google Scholar To the same effect, Verdross Die Nationalisierung niederländischer Unternehmungen in Indonesien im Lichte des Völkerrechts, this Review 6, (1959), p. 280–283.Google Scholar

Resolution adopted at the 48th ILA Conference, ILA 48th Conference Book New York 1958, p. xi, Resolution adopted at the 7th IBA Conference, IBA Seventh Conference Report Cologne 1958, p. 485.Google Scholar

2. Law No. 851 of July 6, 1960, Am. J. of Int. Law 55, (1961), p. 822–823.Google Scholar

3. Act No. 86 of 1958 quoted in “The Status of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Wealth and Resources”, UN Doc A/AC 97/5 of December 15, 1959, p. 139 as well as in this Review 6 (1959) p. 291.Google Scholar

4. Incidentally, this seems to contradict the remark of Venezia, La notion de représailles en droit international public, Revue générale de droit int. public LXIV, (1960), p. 466, 474Google Scholar that it has become rather unusual for a State to admit that it resorts to reprisals.

5. Italics supplied.

5a. The retaliatory character of this Law is admitted even by Carreau de Lou-bresse, De quelques éléments de la législation de la République de Cuba en matière d'intervention économique et de nationalisation, Revue internationale de droit comparé 13 (1961) p. 787Google Scholar, who reviews that legislation without any references to the illegality of many of these measures under International Law. Carreau de Loubresse mentions that – as an afterthought – two further motivations were give to these anti-US measures by supplementary resolutions of May 11, July 17 and August 10, 1961. These reasons are the desire to liberate the national economy from foreign economic intervention and the fight against speculative monopolies.

6. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , International Law (7th ed., 1952) Vol. II, p. 136.Google Scholar To the same effect Art 1 of the Resolution of the Institut de Droit International on the Regime of Peace Time Reprisals (Paris 1934), Wehberg, (éd.), Les Résolutions de l'Institut de Droit International 1879–1956, p. 168.Google Scholar

7. Declarations by the Indonesian Foreign Minister in an interview and by the Minister of Economic Stabilization in Parliament on November 21, 1958 quoted by Lord McNair, The Seizure of Property and Enterprises in Indonesia, this Review 6, (1959), p. 246, 252–253Google Scholar, Rolin, Avis sur la validité des mesures de nationalisation décrétées par le gouvernement indonésien, this Review 6, (1959), p. 275.Google Scholar

8. Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino and Fan, Whitlock & Co., Am. J. of Ini. Law, 55, (1961), 741Google Scholar, at 745, Oberlandesgericht (Court of Appeals) Bremen, 08 21, 1959Google Scholar, Archiv des Völkerrechts 9, (1961), p. 318 at 361.Google Scholar

9. Loc. cit., 6, (1959), p. 274.Google Scholar

10. Cf. Presidential Proclamation Nr. 3355 of July 6, 1960 concerning Determination of Cuban Sugar Quota and accompanying Statement by President Eisenhower, 43 State Dept. Bull. (1960), p. 140–141.Google Scholar

11. 43 State Dept. Bulletin (1960), p. 202.Google Scholar

12. Facts concerning Relations between Cuba and the United States — Document released by the US Delegation to the UN General Assembly on 10 12, 1960, 43Google ScholarState Dept. Bull., (1960), p. 695.Google Scholar

13. Italics supplied.

14. Domke, , The Israel-Soviet Oil Arbitration, 53 Am. J. of Int. Law (1959), p. 799CrossRefGoogle Scholar – but see also Seidl-Hohenveldern, Handel mit Kriegsmaterial und Neutralität in the forthcoming Festschrift für Rudolf Laun, p. note 30, id., The Impact of State Trading on Classical International Law, Yearbook of World Affairs 1961, p. 169 note 45.Google Scholar

15. Cf. Statements quoted supra notes 10–12.

16. Cf. US Note of Protest of 07 5, 1960, 43Google ScholarState Dept. Bull. (1960), p. 141–142.Google Scholar

17. Art. 6 No. 6 of the Resolution of the Institut de Droit Internatinal, Wehberg, , op. cit., p. 169.Google Scholar

18. Rolin, , loc. cit., p. 275Google Scholar, Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino, Am. J. of Int. Law 55, (1961), p. 745.Google Scholar

19. Loc. cit., p. 274.Google Scholar To the same effect, Preise, Die Enteignung der privaten deutschen Auslandsguthaben im Spiegel des Völkerrechts (Bremen 1950), S. 29.Google Scholar

20. Verdross-Zemanek, , Völkerrecht (Vienna 1959), p. 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Rolin, , loc. cit., p. 274.Google Scholar

22. Decision of the US-Mexican General Claims Commission of 10 8, 1930Google Scholarin re Kelley, E. R., RIAA 4, 608 (613).Google Scholar

23. Decision No. 143 of the Franco-Italian Conciliation Commission of September 26, 1952 in re Lemoine, Heritiers, Recueil des Décisions de la Commission de Conciliation Franco-Italienne, Vol. IV, p. 115Google Scholar = Decision Nr. 174 of the same Commission of July 6, 1954 in re Filatures de Schappe, Recueil, Vol. V, p. 103, 105Google Scholar = ILR 1954, 141.Google Scholar

24. Draper, , The Red Cross Conventions (London 1958) p. 192.Google Scholar

25. Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, Am. J. of Int. Law 55, (1961), 741, at 745.Google Scholar

26. Thus the pleadings of the US agent in the Interhandel case before the ICJ, ICJ 1959, Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents, Interhandel case (Switzerland v. USA) p. 509Google Scholar contra Perrin, l'Affaire de l'Interhandel, Annuaire suisse de droit international XVI, (1959), p. 99Google Scholar note 97. Dominicé, , La notion du caractère ennemi des biens privés dans la guerre sur terre (Geneva 1961), p. 238Google Scholar believes that such a customary law may be in the processus of formation but has not yet come into existence cf. ibid., p. 47 and 190.

27. Rubin, , “Inviolability” of Enemy Private Property, 11 Law and Contemporary Problems, (1945), p. 169.Google Scholar

28. Cf. supra note 24.

29. Mosler, Proposals for an International Code regulating the Handling of Property of Enemy Nationals, International Bar Association, Sixth Conference Report, (Oslo 1956), p. 363.Google Scholar

30. Hailsham, Lord on 06 27, 1956Google Scholar, House of Lords Debates Vol. 204, p. 504–505 as quoted by H. W. Baade, Die Behandlung des deutschen Privatvermögens in den Vereinigten Staaten nach dem ersten und Weltkrieg, zweiten, Janssm-Festschrift, (Heidelberg 1958), p. 21 note 62.Google Scholar

31. Decision No. 136 in re Rizzo (No. 1) Recueil IV, p. 82Google Scholar, at 92 = ILR 1952, p. 482.Google Scholar

32. These Conciliation Commissions established pursuant to Art. 83 of the Peace Treaty with Italy of 1947 are in reality Arbitral Tribunals, cf. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Die Vergleichskommissionen gemäss Art. 83 des Friedensvertrages mit Italien von 1947, Archiv des Völkerrechts 9, (1961), p. 278–288.Google Scholar

33. Fitzmaurice, The Juridical Clauses of the Peace Treaties, Recueil des Cours de l'académie de droit international, 73, (1948, II), p. 336.Google Scholar

34. In this case it cannot make any difference whether the forum still adheres to the obsolescent rule of absolute immunity or whether it grants immunity only for acta jure imperii (On this problem Seidl-Hohenveldern, Sovereignty and Economic Co-existence, Clunet 1959, p. 1050–1064Google Scholar as well as the discussions at the 55th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Proceedings 1961, p. 89–146).Google Scholar In the present type of cases there can be no doubt that the taking was an act jure imperii.

35. Thus already The Jupiter (No. 3), (1927), p. 122Google Scholar, Seidl-Hohenveldern, , Internationales Konfiskations- und Enteignungsrecht (Tübingen 1952), p. 134.Google Scholar

36. Thus Wengler, Über die Maxime von der Unanwendbarkeit ausländischer politischer Gesetze, Internationales Recht und Diplomatie 1956, p. 200Google Scholar, commenting on the decision of the Court of Appeals in Regazzoni v. K.C. Sethia (1944) Ltd., (1956)Google Scholar, 2 All E.R. 487. This decision was confirmed by the House of Lords cf. infra note 38.

37. Jessup, , Should International Law recognize an Intermediate Status between Peace and War, Am. J. of Int. Law 48, (1954), p. 98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. Regazzoni v. K. C. Sethia (1944) Ltd, (1958)Google Scholar A.C. 301 = ILR 1957, 15 at 23. Lipstein, , Clunet 1961, p. 1142Google Scholar criticises the Court for disregarding the discriminatory character of the Indian measure.

38a. The Court there refers to my note on Landgericht Bremen 04 21, 1959Google Scholar (the decision of the lower Court in this case), Aussenwirtschaftsdienst des Betirebs-beraters 5, (1959), p. 107.Google Scholar In my subsequent article Ausländische Nationalisie-rungsmassnahmen und ihre Beurteilung durch deutsche Gerichte, ibid., p. 276, I showed that I wanted to draw from this fact conclusions very different from those of the Court.

39. Bremen Court of Appeals 08 21, 1959Google Scholar, Archiv des Völkerrechts, 9 (1961) 318Google Scholar, at 361, partially translated by Domke, , Am. J. of Int. Law 54, (1960), p. 322.Google Scholar

40. Cf. supra text at footnote 14.

41. Wengler, , loc. cit., p. 191 ff.Google Scholar speaks either of “Kampfmassnahmen” (“fighting measures”) or measures of retorsion.

42. Wengler, , loc. cit., p. 198–200.Google Scholar For such limiting interpretation also Lipstein, , Clunet 1961, p. 1142.Google Scholar

43. Wengler, , loc. cit., p. 200Google Scholar is correct in assuming that “according to the situation of the case” the forum will be readier to recognize measures taken against the citizens of a third country rather than against their own citizens. These considerations are quite correct if the measures concerned were merely measures of retorsion. That was the situation in the Indian jute case discussed by Wengler. However, in my opinion at least, the taking of reprisals appears to constitute a very different situation – requiring another attitude of these courts.

44. Cf. Domke, , Indonesian Nationalization Measures before Foreign Courts 54 Am. J. of Int. Law, (1960) 305 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar: id., Foreign Nationalizations, 55 Am. J. of Int. Law, (1961), p. 600–601, 611Google Scholar, Baade, H. W., Indonesian Nationalization Measures before Foreign Courts — A Reply, 54 Am. J. of Int. Law, (1960), 801 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Seidl-Hohenveldern, articles mentioned supra note 38a.

45. Decision of June 3, 1948, Rosenberg v. Fischer, Ann. Dig. 1948, p. 467Google Scholar and of June 24, 1948, P. v. AG K. and P., Ann. Dig. 1948, p. 594.Google Scholar These decisions are based exclusively on the illegality of the taking under International Law. This certainly was sufficient to decide these cases. Hence the problem of neutral duties was not raised expressis verbis.

46. Seidl-Hohenveldern, , Title to Confiscated Foreign Property and Public International Law, 56 Am. J. of Int. Law, (1962), p. 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. Kollewijn, , loc. cit., p. 151 and 163Google Scholar insists however that respect of international law ought to force the courts of third countries to consider all titles acquired in violation thereof to be ipso facto void.

48. Kollewijn, 's arguments (loc. cit., p. 160)Google Scholar against some such “other considerations”, which I had mentioned in my book Internationales Konfiskations- and Enteignungsrecht (Tübingen 1952), p. 13 (e.g. greater facility of international commerce) are convincing. This factor appears to carry less weight especially in the light of subsequent events.