The Legal Nature of Nationalisation

J. Hedemann, op. cit., Deutscher Wirtschaftsrecht, p. 1 et seq.; Nussbaum, op. cit., p. 2; Nipperdey, op. cit., p. 218; G. Del Vecchio, op. cit., Diritto e Económica, p. 4.Google Scholar

Nipperdey, op. cit., p. 218.Google Scholar

Nipperdey, op. cit., pp. 218–219.Google Scholar

G. Erdsiek, Methoden und Einrichtungen des Rechtsunterrichts in Deutschland, Beiträge zur Rechtsforschung, Tübingen, 1950, p. 246.Google Scholar

Vedel, Methoden und Einrichtungen des Rechtsunterrichts in Deutschland, Beiträge zur Rechtsforschung, Tübingen, 1950,Conceptions sociales, p. 5.Google Scholar

Rivero, Methoden und Einrichtungen des Rechtsunterrichts in Deutschland, Beiträge zur Rechtsforschung, Tübingen, 1950, p. 1.Google Scholar

See the following constitutions: Argentine, 16th March, 1949, Part IV (Articles 38–40), “The social function of property, capital and economic activity”; Bolivia, 23rd November, 1945, Section XIII (Articles 107–111), “Economic and Financial Regime”; Brazil, 24th September, 1946. Part V (Article 145–162), “The Economic and Social Order”; Burma, 24th September, 1947 (Article 23), “Economic Rights”; Eastern Germany, 19th March, 1949, Part II, “The Economic Order”; Guatemala, 11th March, 1945, Part IV (Articles 88–100), “Economic and Financial System”; Italy, 22nd December, 1947, Part III (Articles 35–47), “Economic Relations”; Panama, 1st March, 1946, Part XI (Articles 225–239), “National Economy”; Portugal, 1st August, 1935, Part VIII (Articles 29–41), “The Economic and Social Order”; the Saar, 15th December, 1947, Part V (Articles 43–59); Venezuela, 5th July, 1947, Chapter VII (Articles 65–75), “Of the National Economy”.Google Scholar

See the constitutions of Bulgaria, Chapter II (Articles 6–14); Rumania, Chapter II (Articles IV–IX); Poland, Chapter II (Articles 7–14); Albania, Chapter Chapter II (Articles IV–IX); Poland, Chapter II, (Articles 7–14); Albania, Chapter II (Articles 5–11); Czechoslovakia, Chapter VIII (Articles 146–164).Google Scholar

Article 1 of the Constitution of the USSR: “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Socialist State of the workers and peasants.”Google Scholar

Article 4 of the USSR Constitution.Google Scholar

See above, p. 42 et seq. Google Scholar

See above, p. 42 et seq., below, p. 335 et seq. Google Scholar

See above, pp. 36–37.Google Scholar

Article 44/4: “Public services and undertakings which affect the common interest may be nationalised where social needs so require.”Google Scholar

The Constitution of Peru (9th April, 1933), Article 38: “The State may, by virtue of a law, take over or nationalize land, sea, river, lake and aerial transport, or other public services in private ownership, after compensation and in conformity with the law in force.”Google Scholar

Article 4 of the Constitution of the USSR.Google Scholar

The Constitution of Paraguay, 10th July, 1940, (Article 15): “...The State may, with indemnification, nationalize public service and monopolize the production, circulation and sale of articles of primary necessity.”Google Scholar

The Constitution of Nicaragua, 1st November, 1950, (Article 70): “For purposes of general interest, the State may take part in the development and management of public-service enterprises, and may even nationalise them, in the latter case paying prior compensation.”Google Scholar

The Constitution of Burma, 24th September, 1947, (Article 23): “(4) Private property may be limited or expropriated if the public interest so requires... (5) Subject to the conditions set out in the last preceding sub-section, individual branches of national economy, or single enterprises may be nationalised or acquired by the State by law if the public interest so requires.”Google Scholar

The Constitution of Colombia, 16th February, 1945, (Article 30): “...For reasons of public utility or of social interest defined by the law-maker, there may be expropriation by judicial order and after indemnification”...; (Article 32): “The State may intervene by mandate of law in the development of public and private industries or enterprises, for the purpose of nationalizing the production, distribution and consumption of the resources or giving the labourer the just protection to which he is entitled.”Google Scholar

The Constitution of the German Democratic Republic, Article 23: “No limitation of property or expropriation may be effected except in the general interest and on a legal basis’’; Article 25: “All the natural resources of the subsoil, and all natural wealth which can be economically exploited, together with all mines and all undertakings for the production of iron and steel and of the energy necessary for this purpose shall be nationalised.” Google Scholar

The Constitution of the German Federal Republic, Article 14/3: “Expropriation may only be exercised for the good of the community...”; Article 15: “A statute may, for the purposes of socialisation, transfer the soil and the land, natural resources and the means of production to a system of collective ownership.”Google Scholar

The Constitution of Panama, 1st March, 1946, (Article 46): “For reasons of public utility or social interest defined in the law, there may be expropriation by judical decree and with prior indemnification”; Article 225: “The conduct of economic activities belongs primarily to private individuals. But the State will orient, direct, regulate, replace or establish such activities, according to social necessities...” Google Scholar

The Constitution of the Philippines, 8th February, 1935 (Article 13, Section 4): “The Congress may authorize, upon payment of just compensation, the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots, and conveyed at cost to individuals”; Section 6: “The State may, in the interest of national welfare and defense, establish and operate industries and means of transportation and communication and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government.”Google Scholar

The Constitution of Bulgaria, Article 10/5: “Private property may be limited or expropriated compulsorily, solely in the public interest”; Article 10/6: “The State may nationalise, wholly or partially, any branch or undertaking in industry, commerce, transport or credit”; Rumania, Article 10: “Expropriation on the ground of public utility may be effected by statute and subject to fair compensation fixed by the court”; Article 11: “Where the general interest so requires, the means of production, banks and insurance companies which are the private property of individuals or corporations may become the property of the State, that is to say, of the people, under the conditions specified by the law”; Yugoslavia, Article 18/5: “Private property may be limited and expropriated if the general interest so requires...”; Article 18/6: “On the same conditions, any branch or undertaking of the economy may be nationalised if the general interest so requires...”Google Scholar

See above, p. 123 et seq. Google Scholar

Clause XII of the Preamble (Fundamental Articles of the Constitution) and Articles 8–9 and 146–164 of the Constitution of Czecho-Slovakia.Google Scholar

Articles 148 and 152 of the Constitution of Czecho-Slovakia.Google Scholar

Article 153 of the Constitution of Czecho-Slovakia.Google Scholar

Clause XII of the Preamble: “The economic system of the Czecho-Slovak Republic is founded on the nationalisation of mineral wealth, industry, wholesale trade and finance...” Google Scholar

Article 4 of the Constitution of the USSR.Google Scholar

The Constitution of Italy, Article 42/3: “Private property may be, in the cases specified by law, and subject to compensation, expropriated for reasons of general interest”; Article 43: “For reasons of general utility, the law may reserve originally, or transfer, by expropriation and subject to compensation, to the State or to public bodies... (certain enterprises or groups of enterprises).”Google Scholar

Rivero, Le Régime des Nationalisations, 1950, p. 1.Google Scholar

Rivero, Le Régime des Nationalisations, 1950, p. 43 et seq. Google Scholar

Rivero, Le Régime des Nationalisations, 1950, p. 43, below, p. 337.Google Scholar

Clause 9 of the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946.Google Scholar

Article 52 of the Constitution of the Saar: “Key undertakings, collieries and transport cannot, in view of their paramount importance for the economy of the country, or their monopoly character, be the subject of private appropriation and must be administered in the public interest...” The influence of Clause 9 of the Preamble to the French Constitution is evident.Google Scholar

Article 52 of the Constitution of the Saar: “...All important economic undertakings may be expropriated by statute and restored to the public domain, where by their economic policy, their management and their operating methods they form a threat to the public welfare. Where there is good reason, the said undertakings may be placed under the control of the public authorities by a statute specially enacted.”Google Scholar

Chenot, op. cit., p. 367; Gendarme, op. cit., p. 229.Google Scholar

O. Pisko, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907, p. 15 et seq. Google Scholar

E.g. Article 1 of the Loi relative à la Nationalisation de la Banque de France, etc. in France; s. 5 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, in Great Britain; see also the relevant Acts relating to nationalisation in Czecho-Slovakia, of 24th October, 1945, Articles 4 and 5; in Bulgaria, of 27th December, 1947, Articles 6, 8 and 9; in Yugoslavia, of 6th December, 1946, Article 4, etc.Google Scholar

Perroux M, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907, Le Capitalisme, pp. 117, 118; Celier, op. cit., p. 94.Google Scholar

As is proved by the Preamble to all Nationalisation Acts; see Chenot, op. cit., p. 357, and Waline, Les Nationalisations, p. 86.Google Scholar

Salieron, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907, p. vi.Google Scholar

Salieron, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907, p. 123 et seq. Google Scholar

See above, Salieron, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907p. 128.Google Scholar

See above,Salieron, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907 p. 128.Google Scholar

See above,Salieron, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907 p. 74 et seq. Google Scholar

Perroux, Salieron, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907, p. 348.Google Scholar

See however above, Salieron, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907p. 12.Google Scholar

Rivero, Le Régime des Nationalisations, 1960 p. 7;Google Scholar

G. Baudry, L’Expropriation pour Cause d’Utilité publique, 2nd ed., Paris, 1947, p. 5.Google Scholar

Vedel, La Technique des Nationalisations,1947, p. 98.Google Scholar

On the distinction between the two acts, see Waline, La Technique des Nationalisations,1947, pp. 98–100;Google Scholar

Bonnard, La Technique des Nationalisations,1947, p. 261;Google Scholar

Duez and Debeyere, La Technique des Nationalisations,1947, pp. 486–493. The doctrine of acte suprême de gouvernement is not generally recognised in Anglo-Saxon legal systems.Google Scholar

J. Escarra, Manuel de Droit commercial, Paris, 1947–1948, p. 232.Google Scholar

Armengaud, Manuel de Droit commercial, Paris, 1947–1948, p. 2.Google Scholar

Escarra, Manuel de Droit commercial, Paris, 1947–1948, p. 561: “What characterises nationalisation, in the proper sense of the term, is that the ownership of the nationalised industry is transferred to the national community, to the State. The ownership, but not necessarily the exploitation”;Google Scholar

see also G. Lyon-Caen, Les Diverses Formules de Nationalisation, Droit social, 1945, No. 2, pp. 41–42;Google Scholar

R. Roblot, Les Diverses Formules de Nationalisation, Droit social, 1945, p. 43.Google Scholar

Byé, Les Diverses Formules de Nationalisation, Droit social, 1945, p. 1: “The term ‘nationalisation’ is certainly very vague. It could be taken as ‘management in the interests of the Nation’, and one could speak in this sense, for example, of a ‘nationalisation’ of credit, which could be effected without ‘nationalising’ the banks.”Google Scholar

E.g. Chenot, Les Diverses Formules de Nationalisation, Droit social, 1945, p. 358: “The transfer of ownership and public management characterise nationalisation”; see also Gendarme, op. cit., p. x; Waline, Les Nationalisations, op. cit., p. 85; Rivero, Le Régime des Nationalisations, op. cit., p. 1.Google Scholar

Duez and Debeyere, Les Diverses Formules de Nationalisation, Droit social, 1945, p. 883.Google Scholar

On the meaning of étatisation, see below Duez and Debeyere, Les Diverses Formules de Nationalisation, Droit social, 1945, p. 150.Google Scholar

Perroux, Les Nationalisations, 1945, pp. 347–348.Google Scholar

University of Pennsylvania Review, 1949, Vol. 97, pp. 520–521.Google Scholar

See above, p. 133. It is of interest that, although the Constitution of the U.S.A. does not appear to recognise nationalisation, Article V of the “Bill of Rights” does by implication recognise the principle of eminent domain, or expropriation, in these well known words: “No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”Google Scholar

De La Pradelle, op. cit., Les Effets internationaux, p. 61.Google Scholar

Baudry, op. cit., pp. 1, 4; Katzarov, Das Expropriationsverfahren, Innsbruck, 1920, p. 15 et seq. Google Scholar

See above,Katzarov, Das Expropriationsverfahren, Innsbruck, 1920 pp. 13–16.Google Scholar

Chenot, Das Expropriationsverfahren, Innsbruck, 1920, p. 374.Google Scholar

See above,Chenot, Das Expropriationsverfahren, Innsbruck, 1920 p. 15.Google Scholar

Doman, Das Expropriationsverfahren, Innsbruck, 1920, p. 1125;Google Scholar

S. Friedman, Expropriation in International Law, London, 1953, p. 221.Google Scholar

F. Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, Vol. III, p. 56 et seq., Katzarov, Expropriationsverfahren, p. 5.Google Scholar

Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, Vol. III, pp. 57–58;Google Scholar

Baudry, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929 p. 20 et seq.; Katzarov, Expropriationsverfahren, p. 28 et seq. Google Scholar

Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, Vol. III, p. 62.Google Scholar

See above,Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, Vol. III, pp. 127–129.Google Scholar

See above,Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, Vol. III, p. 128.Google Scholar

See above,Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, Vol. III, p. 42 et seq. Google Scholar

Some provisions of the nationalisation acts contain rules for the transmission of rights and obligations existing before the act of nationalisation. These rules have more the character of liquidation and do not change the nature of the act itself.Google Scholar

Duez and Debeyere, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, pp. 883–884; on the Czecho-Slovak concept, see Trnec, op. cit., p. 145.Google Scholar

Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, Vol. III, p. 61; Baudry, op. cit., pp. 3, 35 et seq. Google Scholar

See above,Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929 pp. 133–138.Google Scholar

De La Pradelle, Les Effets internationaux, op. cit., p. 121.Google Scholar

Examples of such a list, which is always tending to grow in length and extent, may be found in nearly all the recent constitutions, e.g. Article 52 of the Constitution of the Saarland; Article 27 of the Constitution of Mexico; Article 148 of the Czecho-Slovak Constitution; Article 7 of the Bulgarian Constitution; Article 14 of the Yugoslav Constitution, etc.Google Scholar

See the texts cited above, p. 139 et seq. Google Scholar

See, with regard to France, Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1929, p. 48.Google Scholar

See above,France, Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1929 p. 133 et seq. Google Scholar

See below,France, Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1929 p. 160.Google Scholar

Baudry, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1929, p. 1;Google Scholar

Kruse, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1929, p. 251.Google Scholar

Ripert, Régime démocratique, 1929, p. 230.Google Scholar

De La Pradelle, Les Effets internationaux, op. cit., p. 121.Google Scholar

Duez and Debeyere, op. cit., p. 883.Google Scholar

Duez and Debeyere, op. cit., p. 883: “Compensation will follow special rules” Rivero, Le Régime des Nationalisations, op. cit., p. 7; see below, p. 322, et seq.; the question of the differentiation of compensation is dealt with in Part IV, Section III, below.Google Scholar

Kruse, op. cit., pp. 254–255.Google Scholar

De La Pradelle, Les Effets internationaux, op. cit., p. 44, uses the expression expropriation confiscatoire. Google Scholar

Doman, op. cit., p. 1125. And see also, e.g., G. A. Van Hecke, Confiscation, Expropriation, and the Conflict of Laws, the International Law Quarterly, 1951, p. 345; Fawcett, Some Foreign Effects, op. cit., p. 356;Google Scholar

I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Internationales Konfiskations- und Enteignungsrecht, Berlin-Tübingen, 1952, p. 5.Google Scholar

See above,I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Internationales Konfiskations- und Enteignungsrecht, Berlin-Tübingen, 1952 p. 133 et seq. Google Scholar

Article 9/2 of the Constitution of Czecho-Slovakia: “Expropriation may be effected only under statute and subject to compensation, save where the statute provides or shall provide that no compensation shall be paid.”Google Scholar

Article 14/3 of the Constitution of Eastern Germany: “...compensation shall be determined on a fair assessment of the interests of the community and those of the person concerned.”Google Scholar

In Great Britain, powers exist in time of war for the requisitioning of land and ships. In this case, requisitioning amounts to a temporary dispossession, the land and ships requisitioned being restored to the owner when no longer needed.Google Scholar

Duez and Debeyere, op. cit., p. 859; R. E. Megarry, A Manual of the Law of Real Property, London, 1949, p. 564; Ripert, Le Régime démocratique, op. cit., p. 231; Waline, Traité, op. cit., p. 411.Google Scholar

P. Guggenheim, Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit international, Bath Session, 1950, p. 79: “...the differentiation between expropriation and nationalisation has my entire support”; Hobza, op. cit., p. 86.Google Scholar

Lyon-Caen, Les Diverses Formules, op. cit., p. 42: “The normal rules of expropriation do not apply here”; Baudin, op. cit., p. 100; Duez and Debeyere, op. cit., p. 884.Google Scholar

E.g. Articles 11 and 470 of the French Criminal Code.Google Scholar

Article 92 of the Constitution of Guatemala of 11th March, 1945; Articles 58, 60 and 64 of the Constitution of Nicaragua of 21st January, 1948; Articles 21 and 67 of the Constitution of Venezuela of 5th July, 1947.Google Scholar

See above, pp. 138–139.Google Scholar

Article 11, French Criminal Code: “Placing under special Police supervision, fines and the special confiscation, either of the corpus delicti, when the property therein is vested in the person convicted, or of things produced by the offence, or of those which were used or intended to be used to commit it, are penalties common to criminal matters and summary offences.”Google Scholar

See above, p. 141.Google Scholar

See above, p. 138.Google Scholar

Article 470, French Criminal Code: “The court... may also... order the confiscation of goods seized in connection with the offence.”Google Scholar

Doman, op. cit., p. 1125: “In the case of refusal of compensation or the offer of granting of inadequate compensation, nationalisation resembles confiscation”; Edward D. Re, Foreign Confiscation in Anglo-American Law, New York, 1951, p. 5 et seq. Google Scholar

Jacquignon, op. cit., p. 368.Google Scholar

Van Hecke, op. cit., p. 345: “By confiscation is meant the taking of property without adequate compensation, by whatever method it may be carried or cloaked”; Fawcett, Some Foreign Effects, op. cit., p. 356; Seidl-Hohenveldern, op. cit., p. 5 et seq.; P. Adriaanse, Confiscation in Private International Law, The Hague, 1956, pp. 6–7, 165.Google Scholar

See above, p. 138.Google Scholar

For example, the nationalisation of the Usines Renault in France; see above, p. 44.Google Scholar

E.g. in all the nationalisations in Eastern Europe, against those who collaborated with the Nazis.Google Scholar

From this point of view, the Polish Act of 5th February, 1946 is very typical (see above, p. 58) in combining confiscation and nationalisation in Article 2, when it stipulates: “The following shall become national property without compensation, namely industrial, mining, transport, banking, insurance and commercial undertakings (a) of the German Reich and the former Free State of Dantzig (b) of citizens of the German Reich...” This Article does not introduce either outright confiscation, or nationalisation without compensation, but two things, confiscation and simultaneously, nationalisation. Nationalisation itself is further regulated by Article 3 of the Act.Google Scholar

See above, p. 42 et seq.; below, p. 335.Google Scholar

See above, p. 34; below, p. 332.Google Scholar

See below, p. 324 et seq.; see also Article 14/3 of the Constitution of Federal Germany.Google Scholar

See below, Part IV, Section III.Google Scholar

See above, p. 42 et seq. Google Scholar

Voinea, op. cit., p. xiv.Google Scholar

Perroux, op. cit., p. 348.Google Scholar

See below, p. 179 et seq. Google Scholar

See below, p. 190 et seq. Google Scholar

Byé, op. cit., p. 23.Google Scholar

Katzarov, Nouveaux Aspects, op. cit., p. 431.Google Scholar

Katzarov, Nouveaux Aspects, op. cit., pp. 440–442.Google Scholar

For certain details, see Katzarov, Nouveaux Aspects, op. cit., pp. 441–445.Google Scholar

Even nationalisations which, by their nature, are very close to étatisation, as for example, those of the Central Banks, are described in the relevant statutes as “nationalisations”, e.g. Act No. 45–015 of 2nd December, 1945 on the nationalisation of the Bank of France, Journal Officiel, No. 285 (3rd December, 1945).Google Scholar

Baudin, op. cit., p. 109: “Nationalisation consists in the transfer to the nation of the ownership and management of an undertaking. It is not étatisation”; Gendarme, op. cit., p. 27: “In the first place, nationalisation must be distinguished from étatisation. Nationalisation means the handing over to the nation, and not to the State, of a fraction of industry”; Perroux, op. cit., p. 348: “Nationalisation is distinguished from étatisation. Nationalisation expresses the desire to restore industry, or one of its sectors, to the nation and not to the State”; Vedel, op. cit., La Technique des Nationalisations, p. 97: “But nationalisation is not étatisation, as has been said again and again.”Google Scholar

See below, pp. 193–195, 210 et seq. Google Scholar

Duguit, Traité de Droit constitutionnel, Paris, 1928, Vol. II, p. 12 et seq., Del Vecchio, op. cit., p. 492 et seq., Ruyssen, op. cit., p. 24.Google Scholar

Duguit, Traité de Droit constitutionnel, Paris, 1928, Vol. III, p. 14 et seq. Google Scholar

Del Vecchio, Traité de Droit constitutionnel, Paris, 1928, p. 492.Google Scholar

Duguit, Traité de Droit constitutionnel, Paris, 1928, Vol. II, p. 12.Google Scholar

See above,Duguit, Traité de Droit constitutionnel, Paris, 1928 p. 5 et seq. Google Scholar

W. Burckhardt, Einführung in die Rechtswissenschaft, Zürich, 1939, p. 113 et seq. Google Scholar

Article 5 of the Constitution of the USSR. In at least one country, Great Britain, other public authorities have been created to administer particular nationalised undertakings in the public interest. These do not fall conveniently into any of the categories defined in the text. Robson has defined them as “non-profit making public corporations subject to some degree of State control” (Robson, op. cit., pp. 74–77).Google Scholar

Fr. Luchaire, Le Statut des Entreprises publiques. Droit social, 1947, No. 7, p. 254; Celier, op. cit., p. 96; Salieron, op. cit., p. xvi.Google Scholar

Article 5 of the Constitution of the USSR: “Socialist property in the USSR takes the form either of State property (the property of the whole people) or cooperative and collective farm property (the property of each collective farm and cooperative union).”Google Scholar

See below, p. 233 et seq. Google Scholar

E.g. the Bulgarian Act of 27th December, 1947 stipulates that cooperative undertakings and craft industries are not subject to nationalisation.Google Scholar

Celier, op. cit., p. 96.Google Scholar

Lyon-Caen, Les Diverses Formules, op. cit., p. 41.Google Scholar

An example of this is the definition of “socialist property” given by Article 5 of the Constitution of the USSR, which embraces State property as well as cooperative and collective farm property.Google Scholar

Leverkuehn, op. cit., pp. 782–783, gives an interesting list of possibilities which a “community” affected by nationalisation has of exercising its rights: “In Hamburg, for instance, an opinion on socialisation was given at the request of the Hamburg Senate (Das Hamburger Sozialisierungsgutachten, annotated by Klabunde, Hamburg, 1947). Here it is said: socialisation amounts to nationalisation in exceptional cases only. Normally, it ought to take the following forms — (a) cooperatives with a considerable number of members, who need not be employees of the socialised undertaking, (b) cooperative organisations, (c) cooperative management in the form of cooperative Unkings of public law corporations and local authorities (d)... (e) public law corporations, (f) private and public companies owned by trade unions, (g) private and public companies owned by public bodies, (h) a combination of two or more of the above forms.”Google Scholar

The acquisition by the State of a gaming casino would also be inconsistent with the concept of nationalisation. An asset of this kind could be expropriated by the State for fiscal reasons, but not nationalised.Google Scholar

Racine, op. cit., p. xxvii.Google Scholar

M. Byé, Le Conflit, op. cit., p. 21.Google Scholar

Experience in Great Britain confirms much of the foregoing. The essence of the act of nationalisation is seen to be the transfer of an economic activity from the ownership and control of private individuals and profit-making bodies to the ownership and control of some public body representing the community at large. This public body does not operate essentially with a profit motive, and is publicly accountable for the conduct of the undertaking. It would not effect the nature of the act of nationalisation if this public body were to be a department of the central government; the results in such a case would be a complete absorption of the activity by the central government and would thus constitute étatisation. But it was realised by the Labour government of 1945–1951 that the nature of the undertakings nationalised, mainly large scale commercial and industrial undertakings, did not render administration by a government department the most effective method of organisation. Instead, the nationalisation statutes provided for the creation of new public corporations, e.g. the National Coal Board, the British Transport Commission. These new bodies were distinct from the regular departments of the central government but were nonetheless instruments of public policy and were subject to control on matters of policy by the government. On day to day matters, managerial decisions and routine activities, the new corporations were to be independent of government control. The corporations have their own legal personality and are subject to the ordinary law of the land: they do not share the immunity of the Crown from criminal prosecution and are not servants or agents of the Crown. (See the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Tamlin v. Hannaford [1950] 1 K.B. 18). The independent legal status of the corporations should not obscure the very real political control exercised over them on policy matters by the government. (See below, p. 212). In Great Britain, therefore, nationalisation has not meant a proliferation of new government departments, i.e. it has not been implemented through étatisation. But, for the reasons given, although the nationalised undertakings are administered by means of semi-independent public corporations, it would be correct in a general way to describe the undertakings both as “State owned” and “State controlled”. (See Robson, op. cit., Chapter III, especially pp. 74–77). It may be added that Britain has not yet reached a final solution to the difficult political and administrative problems arising from the situation of the nationalised undertakings being treated partly as commercial undertakings and at the same time subject to some governmental control. (See Robson, op. cit., pp. 157–162).Google Scholar