Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T09:20:28.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vesting Orders Under the First War Powers Act, 1941

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Edgar Turlington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , July 1942 , pp. 460 - 465
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1942

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 The designation of foreign countries in the order of April 10, 1940, as amended up to December 26, 1941, included every country on the European Continent with the exception of Turkey. It also included China, Japan, Thailand and Hongkong. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was relieved of the freezing restrictions upon its entry into the war.British and American territories occupied by the Japanese were added to the list of “blockedcountries” after our entry into the war.

2 Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, 282 U. S. 481.

3 “Expropriation of Foreign Property”, Vol. 35 (1941), 243, 252.

4 Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, p. 256.

5 Ibid., p. 257, citing Hardman (Great Britain) v. U. S., this Journal, Vol. 7 (1913),879, in which it was held that “necessary acts of war do not imply the belligerent’s legal obligation to compensate” but that “there is, nevertheless, a certain humanitary conduct generally followed by nations to compensate the private war losses as a matter purely of grace and favor.”

6 Ibid., p. 258, citing Respublica v. Sparhawk (1788), 1 Dallas 357, 362, and Final Report of Spanish Treaty Claims Commission, May 2, 1910, p. 12.

7 Ibid., p. 265.

8 44 Stat. 2132, 2379, 2441; 45 Stat. 2641; 47 Stat. 2135; 48 Stat. 1507; 49 Stat. 2659.

9 Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, supra.

10 Compare Borchard, op. cit., p. 100; Cowles, Treaties and Constitutional Law, Property Interferences and Due Process of Law, p. 2.