Advertisement

Territorial Confiscations

  • Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam
  • Pieter Adriaanse
Chapter

Abstract

Views diverge regarding the validity of territorial confiscations. This is apparent from the case law which in this respect has come into existence. The question of validity may appear in different ways. Most frequent is the following case. The confiscating state, or its assignee, exports the confiscated goods and an action for recovery is brought before a foreign court either against the confiscating state, where the latter still claims a title to property, or against its assignee, where the goods have already been alienated1. It is evident that in such cases the courts are asked to give different decisions from those in matters of extra-territorial confiscation. In adjudging a territorial confiscation to be valid, the courts will play a more passive part, than in a case where they validate an extra-territorial confiscation. In the latter case their part would be an active one since they would aid in the execution of a foreign confiscatory measure. On the one hand the question is whether “the validity or legality of what that foreign government has done may be examined and possibly invalidated and set aside. This situation, as may be noticed, deals with what is a fait accompli.

Keywords

Foreign Government Mexican Government Original Owner Fait Accompli Dutch Court 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Classic example: Luther v. Sagor [1921] 1 K.B. 456 and [1921] 3 K.B. 532; instead of an action for recovery an action for damages may be brought (Hertzfeld v. U.S.S.R. Trib. civil de la Seine 18–10–1933, Clunet 1934, 636) or the confiscating state, that has lost possession of the good, goes to law in order to recover it (Saez Murua v. Pinillos and Garcia, Belgian Court of Cassation 23–11–1939, Ann. Dig. 1938–1940, 289).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 1.
  4. 2.
    Trib. civil de la Seine 12–12–1923, Clunet 1924, 133.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    [1921 ] 1 K. B. 456.Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    To the same effect : The Annette, The Dora [ 1919] P. 105.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    Supra, 27 ff.Google Scholar
  8. 1.
    H. Henrich (Die russischen Enteignungsdekrete and ihre Rechtswirkung im Ausland, Hamburg, 1933, 79) prophesied that after the recognition an appeal to the principle of public policy would prove unacceptable, since before that the rejection of the confiscation had been based solely on the non–recognition. This prophesy however did not come true. Cf. also Bartin, I, 62. For the rest the forecast was unfounded and illogical.Google Scholar
  9. 2.
    The Jupiter (No. 3) [1927] P. 122.Google Scholar
  10. 3.
    Cf. Seidl–Hohenveldern 25, 26.Google Scholar
  11. 4.
    Etat russe c. Cie Russe de Navigation à Vapeur et de Commerce (Ropit), Trib. comm. of Marseilles 23–4–1925, Clunet 1925, 391.Google Scholar
  12. 5.
    Labry, 371; Bunyan & Fisher, 611; Hahn und von Lilienfeld–Toal, 106; decree of January 26/February 8, 1918.Google Scholar
  13. 1.
    It is considered to be a privilegium odiosum: cf. J. Delehelle in Revue Darras, 1927, 216; P. Arminj on : Les lois politiques et le droit international privé, Revue Darras, 1930, 385; Les lois politiques, fiscales, monétaires en droit international privé, Annuaire, 1950 II, 1.Google Scholar
  14. 2.
    Circular 12–4–1922, No. 42, Clunet 1925, 568. Google Scholar
  15. 3.
    Circular 26–9–1923, No. 194, Clunet 1925, 569. Google Scholar
  16. 4.
    Cour d’Appel of Aix 23–12–1925, Clunet 1926, 667. Google Scholar
  17. 5.
    As to the observation that Soviet Russia herself was advocating the purely domestic validity, it may be remarked that the circulars in question did not have force of law and consequently a decision could hardly be based upon them. Moreover the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs in a subsequent circular (No. 329 dated October 23, 1925, Clunet 1927, 531) issued an explicit statement, calling the interpretation given to the circular of 12–4–1922 quite wrong. Its only purpose was to provide foreign representatives with an instruction how to act. For the rest it is to be noted that the argument that the Soviets themselves wished their legislation to be taken in a purely domestic sense was of secondary importance only.Google Scholar
  18. 1.
    5–3–1928, Clunet 1928, 674.Google Scholar
  19. 2.
    Banque et Société de pétrole c. Cie mexicaine de pétroles El Aguila 18–10–1938, Bulletin vol. 41, 65.Google Scholar
  20. 3.
    Trib. civil of Le Havre, 22–7–1939; particulars regarding the decisions, mentioned in this note and the next one were found in a decision Trib. civil of le Havre 17–111948, dealing with a claim of compensation against the Mexican Eagle (El Aguila). Through the kind intermediary of N.V. De Bataafsche Petroleum Maatschappij the text of this decision was put at our disposal.Google Scholar
  21. 4.
    Cour d’Appel of Rouen 2–12–1942.Google Scholar
  22. 5.
    In this connection the decision Re Comp. Mexican Eagle, Cour d’Appel of Rouen 27–7–1943 (cf. Niboyet, Traité, IV, 437) S. (Table Quinq. 1941–45) 214, seems rather strange. On the one hand it stated that this was not a case of outright confiscation since compensation had been promised. On the other hand it remarked that “dans ces conditions les tribunaux français ne peuvent censurer un acte d’un gouvernement étranger,” since the public policy principle could only be applied if a question on French territory was at issue and here only a question between foreigners and a foreign state was at stake.Google Scholar
  23. 1.
    25–5–37, Clunet 1937, 535, S. 1938.2.105, Ann. Dig. 1935–1937, 191, re Moulin c. Volatron. Google Scholar
  24. 2.
    25–3–1939, Ann. Dig. 1938–1940, 24, re Volatron c. Moulin. Google Scholar
  25. 3.
    Cour de Cassation 14–3–1939, Clunet 1939, 615, Ann. Dig. 1938–1940, 150, S. 1939. 1.182.Google Scholar
  26. 4.
    Bloch c. Potassas Ibericas, Cour d’Appel of Nîmes, 19–5–1941, Gaz. du Palais 1941 II 105.Google Scholar
  27. 5.
    Consorzi agrari di Piacenza c. Commissariat pour le commerce étranger de l’ R.S.S.R., Clunet 1924, 257.Google Scholar
  28. 6.
    Ostrecht 1925, 178; decision of 25–4–1925.Google Scholar
  29. 1.
    Court of Appeal of Milan, 26–7–1922, Ann. Dig. 1919–1922, 26.Google Scholar
  30. 2.
    L. G. Kassel, 20–7–1948, Z.A.I.P. 1949, 138; A. G. Waiblingen, 26–6–1948, Z.A.I. P. 1949, 139; A.G. Dingolfing, 7–12–1948, Z.A.I.P. 1949, 141 ; O.L.G. Nürnberg 1–6–1949, Bruns Z. 1951–52, 265; L.G. Berlin–West 13–10–1950, N.J.W. 1951, 238. A different view was held by L.G. Hildesheim 18–11–1947, Z.A.I.P. 1949, 137; L.G. Cottbus, 5–4–1950, Bruns Z. 1951–52, 264.Google Scholar
  31. 3.
    E. g. Wortley, Rec. des Cours 1939, I, 424 and 1947, II, 82; Fachiri, Brit. Yearb. 1931, 95; Schmitthof, 59.Google Scholar
  32. 4.
    A.J.I.L. 1953, 325; cf. H. W. Baade: Die Anerkennung im Ausland vollzogener Enteigungen, in Jahrbuch fur Internationales Recht III, 132 and M. Philonenko: Une des affaires de l’ Anglo–Iranian, Clunet 1954, 380. The Tokyo District Court and the Tokyo Higher Court held that public policy might be invoked in cases of territorial confiscatory measures, though they recognized the Iranian measure in a similar case, Anglo–Iranian Co., Ltd. v. Idemitsu Kosan Co (the tanker Nissho Maru), 1953, D. P. O’Connell, I.C.L.Q. 1955, 267 ff.Google Scholar
  33. 5.
    Venice 11–3–1953, A.J.I.L. 1953, 509.Google Scholar
  34. 1.
    The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon, 7 Cranch 116, U.S. 1812, Hudson, 306.Google Scholar
  35. 2.
    Cf. e.g. Fedozzi, Rec. des Cours 1929, II, 145; Holdsworth, Col. L.R. 1941, 1313; King, A.J.I.L. 1948, 811; Mann, L.Q.R. 1943, 42 and 155; Van Panhuys, R. M. Themis, 1953, 217; Van Praag, Revue de dr.i. et de lég. comp., 1923, 436; Re, 19.Google Scholar
  36. 3.
    168 U.S. 250 (1897) ; earlier decisions : as to England : Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hannover, 2 H.L. Cas. 1 (1848) cf. Re 29; as to the U.S.A. : Hatch v. Baez, 7 Hun 596 (N.Y. 1876), cit. Re, 35; Waters v. Collot, 2 Dall. 247 (U.S. 1796) cit. Re, 23.Google Scholar
  37. 4.
    “The immunity of individuals from suits brought in foreign tribunals for actt done within their own states, in the exercise of governmental authorities ... musr necessarily extend to the agents of governments ruling by paramount force as a mattes of fact.”Google Scholar
  38. 1.
    213 U.S. 347 (1909).Google Scholar
  39. 2.
    246 U.S. 297 (1918).Google Scholar
  40. 3.
    246 U.S. 304 (1918).Google Scholar
  41. 4.
    This is apparent from the cases Underhill and Ricaud and results from the nature of the rule.Google Scholar
  42. 1.
    299 U.S. 468 (1937) ; this was an action for the title to land. The land in question was part of Mexico and was in 1926 cut by avulsion from the southern (Mexican) bank of the Rio Grande to the northern (U.S.) bank and so became part of the U.S. In the first instance (Ann. Dig. 1935–1937, 31) however, it was stated that the act of state doctrine was applicable : according to the court this was a “fait accompli, whose validity of justice may not be inquired into by a court of this country ...” Reference was made to the cases Oetjen and Ricaud. Google Scholar
  43. 2.
    Cf. Re 115, 116.Google Scholar
  44. 3.
    37 A.L.R. 748 (1925).Google Scholar
  45. 1.
    92 N.J.L. 38, 104 Atl. 450 (1918), cit. Re, 167.Google Scholar
  46. 2.
    Ann. Dig. 1919–1922, 53.Google Scholar
  47. 3.
    Ann. Dig. 1925–1926, 59.Google Scholar
  48. 4.
    Ann. Dig. 1925–1926, 67; reference to Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176 (1877). Google Scholar
  49. 5.
    Ann. Dig. 1923–1924, 39.Google Scholar
  50. 6.
    Ann. Dig. 1933–1934, 22.Google Scholar
  51. 7.
    Ann. Dig. 1933–1934, 27. Google Scholar
  52. 1.
    Ann. Dig. 1929–1930, 43. The risk of double payment was also mentioned here.Google Scholar
  53. 2.
    Ann. Dig. 1938–1940, 90; 139 A.L.R. 1211.Google Scholar
  54. 3.
    Ann. Dig. 1938–1940, 12.Google Scholar
  55. 4.
    Not even when, as in this case, an examination expressis verbis was asked for by the Franco–government, which meanwhile had been recognized; cf. Re, 114–171.Google Scholar
  56. 5.
    Ann. Dig. 1947, 11, Clunet 1950, 228, A.J.I.L. 1948, 217, Col. L.R. 1947, 106.Google Scholar
  57. 1.
    Ann. Dig. 1948, 20, A.J.I.L. 1948, 726 and A.J.I.L. 1949, 180, A.J.I.L. 1950, 182.Google Scholar
  58. 2.
    E. g. Yale L.J. 1947, 108; Col. L.R. 1947, 1061, cf. Re 150, 169, 170.Google Scholar
  59. 3.
    [1921] 3 K. B. 532.Google Scholar
  60. 4.
    Cf. on this supra, 35 ff.Google Scholar
  61. 5.
    Williams v. Bruffy 96 U.S. 176 (1877) ; Underhill v. Hernandez 168 U.S. 250 (1897) ; Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. 246 U.S. 297 (1918) and Ricaud v. American Metal Co. 246 U.S. 304 (1918).Google Scholar
  62. 1.
    [1929] 1 K.B. 718; this Russian princess is the authoress of a booklet containing a striking description of her last years in Russia, entitled: Souvenirs de Russie, 1916–1919 (Paris, 1923) .Google Scholar
  63. 2.
    Under similar circumstances further actions may perhaps be expected. According to the New York Times (International Air Edition) of 12–6–1950 Russia offered for sale in Belgium large quantities of diamond, viz. diamonds cut before the revolution and taken from the owners by way of confiscation.Google Scholar
  64. 1.
    246 U.S. 297 (1918).Google Scholar
  65. 2.
    [1902] A.C. 176; cf. Mann, L.Q.R. 1943, 164; here a seizure of arms was at issue within the territorial waters of Muscat under the authority of the Sultan of Muscat.Google Scholar
  66. 3.
    Mexico v. B.P.M., N.J. 1938, No. 790, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 16.Google Scholar
  67. 1.
    Annuaire Grotius, 1939, 121. Google Scholar
  68. 2.
    Petroservice v. El Aguila, N.J. 1939, No. 115, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 16. Google Scholar
  69. 1.
    Fa Pakhuismeesteren v. El Aguila 6–4–1939, N.J . 1939, No. 782.Google Scholar
  70. 2.
    Petroservice v. El Aguila 13–6–1939, N.J . 1940, No. 19.Google Scholar
  71. 3.
    Petroservice v. Mexican Eagle 19–9–1939, N.J. 1940, No. 20.Google Scholar
  72. 1.
    Davis & Cy v. El Aguila 31–7–1939, N.J. 1939, No. 747, Ann. Dig. 1938–1940, 25.Google Scholar
  73. 2.
    Petroservice v. El Aguila, N.J. 1940, No. 27, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 16.Google Scholar
  74. 3.
    El Aguila v. Petroservice 7–12–1941, N. J. 1941, No. 923, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol.,16. Google Scholar
  75. 1.
    Ann. Dig. 1938–1940, 25.Google Scholar
  76. 2.
    Zürich 19–12–1928, Z. f .O. 1929, 1403.Google Scholar
  77. 3.
    Decision 13–6–1924, Ostrecht 1925, 165.Google Scholar
  78. 4.
    “Deutschland verzichtet auf die Ansprüche, die sich aus der bisherigen Anwendung der Gesetze und Masznahmen der RSFSR auf deutsche Reichsangehörige oder ihre Privatrechte ... gegen Reichsangehörige oder ihre Privatrechte ergeben, vorausgesetzt, dasz die Regierung der RSFSR auch ähnliche Ansprüche dritter Staaten nicht befriedigt.” Text Martens, Nouveau Rec., 3e Serie, XII, 70.Google Scholar
  79. 1.
    L.G. Hamburg 26–12–1924, Ostrecht 1925, 170.Google Scholar
  80. 2.
    E.g. Scherbatow g. Lepkes Kunstauktionshaus L.G. Berlin 1–11–1928, Clunet 1929, 184; L.G. Berlin 11–12–1928, Z. f .O. 1929, 1366.Google Scholar
  81. 3.
    Rejection of validity in L.G. Kassel 20–7–1948, Z.A.I.P. 1949, 138 (public policy, violation of the principles of public international law) ; A.G. Waiblingen 26–6–1948, Z.A.I.P. 1949, 139 (public policy); A.G. Dingolfing 7–12–1948, Z.A.I.P. 1949, 141 (public policy, violation of the principles of the law of nature and public international law) ; O.L.G. Nürnberg 1–6–1949, Bruns Z. 1951/52, 265 (violation of public international law); L.G. Berlin–West 13–10–1950, N.J.W. 1951, 238. Recognition of the validity however in L.G. Hildesheim 18–11–1947, Z.A.I.P. 1949, 137 and L.G. Cottbus 5–4–1950, Bruns Z. 1951/52, 264.Google Scholar
  82. 4.
    Supreme Court 11–6–1941, Weiss v. Simon, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 108, Z.A.I.P. 1940/41, 833; Supreme Court 10–6–1942, Z.A.I.P. 1949/50, 497.Google Scholar
  83. 1.
    Oberste Rückstellingskommission (O.R.K.) 30–10–1948, J.Bl. 1949, 18, overruling Rückstellungsoberkommission Vienna 10–9–1948, J.Bl. 1949, 18, 231. To the same effect O.L.G. München 10–2–1950, Clunet 1951, 1226: seizure by occupant in the Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1956

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam
  • Pieter Adriaanse
    • 1
  1. 1.MaassluisThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations