Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T20:06:00.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Title to Confiscated Foreign Property and Public International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent well-documented article Domke has criticized this writer for not having cited a single case for a proposition contained in the writer’s book, Internationales Konfiskations- und Enteignungsrecht.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , April 1962 , pp. 507 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 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 Domke, , “Foreign Nationalizations,” 55 A.J.I.L. 585, 612 (1961)Google Scholar.

2 Tübingen, 1952. An English outline of this book was published under the title, “Extraterritorial Effects of Confiscations and Expropriations,” in 49 Mich. Law Rev. 851–868 (1951). For recent statements of the writer’s views on the subject in general, cf. his reports of the Int. Law Ass’n. Committee on Nationalization and Foreign Property (Int. Law Ass’n., 48th Conference, Report 184 ff., and 49th Conference, Report 213 ff.), as well as his mimeographed lectures on “Le régime des investissements en droit international” (Paris, 1961).

3 Seidl-Hohenveldern, , Internationales Konfiskations- und Enteignungsrecht 36 and 43 (1952)Google Scholar.

4 Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U. S. 304 (1918), Seidl-Hohenveldern, op. cit. 37; Banque de France v. Equitable Trust Co., 33 F. (2d) 202 (S.D.N.Y., 1929), Banque de France v. Chase National Bank, 60 F. (2d) 793 (CCA. (2d)), Ann. Dig. 1929–1930, No. 22 (also involving the risk of double jeopardy), Seidl-Hohenveldern, ibid. 21, note 21; Shapleigh v. Mier, 83 F. (2d) 673 (1936), 299 U. S. 468 (1937), 31 A.J.I.L. 528, 529 (1937), Seidl-Hohenveldern, ibid. 37.

5 Mann, , “Völkerrechtswidrige Enteignungen vor nationalen Gerichten,” 1961 Neue Jur. Woehenschrift 708 Google Scholar; Verzijl, , “The Relevance of Public and of Private International Law respectively for the Solution of Problems Arising from the Nationalization of Enterprises,” 19 Zeitschrift für ausl. öff. Recht u. Völkerrecht 547 (1958)Google Scholar.

6 Poortensdijk v. Latvian Soviet Republic, Ann. Dig. 1919–1942, No. 75, Seidl-Hohenveldern, op. cit. 43, note 14.

7 In re Russian Bank for Foreign Trade, [1933] 1 Ch. 745, Seidl-Hohenveldern, ibid. 37.

8 Perry v. Equitable Life Assurance Society (K. B., 1929), 45 T.L.R. 468, Seidl-Hohenveldern, op. cit. 88, note 3.

9 District Ct. Rotterdam, July 31, 1939, Dairs and Co. v. El Aguila, Ann. Dig. 1919– 1942, No. 7, p. 19, Seidl-Hohenveldern, ibid. 46.

10 Landgericht Hamburg, June 13, 1924, Caucasian Licorice Co. v. Katz, 34 Niemeyers Zeitschrift für Int. Recht 465 (1925), Seidl-Hohenveldern, ibid. 13 (Rapallo Treaty).

11 Trib. Comm. Marseille, April 23, 1925, 1925 Clunet 391, and Court of Cass. (Req.), March 5, 1928, 1928 Clunet 674; Etat Russe c. Ropit, Court of Cass. (Civ.), March 14, 1939, 1939 Clunet 615; Potassas Ibericas o. Bloch, Seidl-Hohenveldern, ibid. 49–50.

12 Seidl-Hohenveldern, , “Communist Theories on Confiscation and Expropriation. Critical Comments,” 7 A. J. Comp. Law 557 (1958)Google Scholar; idem, “ Auslandische Nationalisierungsmassnahmen und ihre Beurteilung durch deutsche Gerichte,” 5 Aussenwirtschaftsdienst des Betriebsberaters 273 (1959); idem, Report of the International Committee on Nationalization, Int. Law Ass’n., 48th Conference, Report 203 (New York, 1958).

13 “Der völkerrechtliche Schutz des Privateigentums,” Festschrift fur Hans Lewald 547, 552 (1953); idem, “Einige Grenzfragen des ordre public in Fallen entschadigungsloser Konfiskation,” 11 Annuaire Suisse de Droit International 91, 98 (1954).

14 No such accusations were brought against the country of the forum where citizens of third states (citizens neither of the forum nor of the taking state) failed for one reason or another to have their property restored to them. At least, the writer has never heard of any such protests by France against the U. S. (c/. note 4 above), by the U. K. against Germany {of. note 10 above) or Italy and Japan (The Anglo-Iranian oil cases), or by The Netherlands against the German Federal Republic (Bremen Tobacco case, Oberlandesgericht Bremen, Aug. 21, 1959, now fully reported in 9 Archiv des Völkerrechts 318–363 (1961)).

15 De Nova, Note on Trib. Rome, Sept. 13, 1954 (Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. v. SUPOR), 47 Revue Critique de Droit Int. Privé 541 (1958); Seidl-Hohenveldern, Int. Law Ass’n., 48th Conference, Report 134 (1958); 49th Conference, Report 224 (1960).

16 1959 Aussenwirtschaftsdienst (cited note 12 above) 276.

17 Ibid. 107.

18 Swiss Fed. Trib., April 17, 1916, “La Nationale” c. Biermann, BGE 42 II 179, 184; Swedish Supreme Court, Oct. 16, 1944, Hopf Products Ltd. v. Paul Hopf and Skandinaviska Banken AB., Ann. Dig. 1943–1945, No. 16. Cf. also Seidl-Hohenveldern, “Feindhandelsverbote im internationalen Privatrecht,” 4 Jahrbuch für intern. Recht 63 ff. (1952–1953).

19 Swiss Ted. Trib., June 24, 1948, Ann. Dig. 1948, No. 196, and Sept. 21, 1948, Ann. Dig. 1948, No. 177; Austrian Supreme Court, July 20, 1955, 45 Rev. Crit. de Droit Int. Privé 479 (1956).

20 These considerations will be enlarged in an article on “Reprisals and the Taking of Private Property,” in the special issue of the Netherlands Review of International Law to be published in honor of Professor Kollewijn.