Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-hbs24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:12:54.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Wealth and Resources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

James N. Hyde
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An event which awakened a lively interest on the part of the American business community in the economic activities of the United Nations occurred in December, 1952. A United Nations General Assembly resolution contained the proposition that “the right of peoples freely to use and exploit their natural wealth and resources is inherent in their sovereignty.…”

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , October 1956 , pp. 854 - 867
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1956

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 General Assembly Res. 626 (VII), Dec. 21, 1952.

2 The term “taking of private property” is used in this article. In U.N. debates the terms “expropriation,” “nationalization,” and “confiscation” have been interchangeably used to denote a taking of private property under government authority without adequate, prompt and effective compensation. Some writers on this subject have suggested that the term “expropriation” denotes a taking with compensation and “confiscation” a taking without it. See, for example, Seidl-Hohenveldern, Internationales Konfiskations- und Bnteignungrecht, Ch. I, p. 5 (Berlin, 1952).

However, this definition of expropriation also necessitates defining compensation to exclude a taking with some, but inadequate payment. This is an all too usual situation in which a private investor may have no adequate remedy against the state. See Gutteridge, “Expropriation and Nationalization in Hungary, Bulgaria and Roumania,” 1 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 14 (1952).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 U. S. Mission to the United Nations, Press Release 1624, Rev. 1, Dec. 21, 1952.

4 See 29 Dept. of State Bulletin 357–360 (Sept. 14, 1953).

5 Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Ltd. v. Societa S.U.P.O.R. No. 3906/53, Italy, Civil Tribunal of Rome, Sec. I, July 14, 1954; summary in 49 A.J.I.L. 259–261 (April, 1955).

6 Green, J. F., “The United Nations and Human Rights,” Brookings Institution (1956), pp. 48–53 Google Scholar; Rivlin, B., “Self-determination and Dependent Areas,” International Conciliation, No. 501 (January, 1955).Google Scholar

7 See Green, loc. cit. 49.

8 See Report of Third Committee on Draft International Covenants on Human Rights, U.N. Doc. A/3077; 2 United Nations Review 28–35 (February, 1956); E. Cruickshank, “Action of the General Assembly at its Tenth Session on Self-Determination of Peoples,” Chamber of Commerce of the United States, United Nations Report No. 19, Feb. 15, 1956.

9 Economic and Social Council, 18th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 7, Annex I, or 1 United Nations Review (January, 1955).

10 U.N. Doc. A/C.3/L.489.

11 General Assembly, 10th Sess., Official Records, Third Committee, 638th Meeting, p. 70.

12 See Green, loc. cit. 59 et seq.: “The New United Nations Position.”

13 33 Dept. of State Bulletin 808 (Nov. 14, 1955).

14 General Assembly, 10th Sess., Official Records, Third Committee, 644th Meeting, p. 99.

15 Ibid., 650th Meeting, p. 130.

16 Ibid., 672nd Meeting, p. 240.

17 Ibid., 648th Meeting, p. 121; see 668th Meeting, p. 222. Not contained in the Summary Record is the speaker’s reference to a New York Stock Exchange statement.

18 U. S. Mission to U.N., Press Release 2286, Nov. 24, 1955.

19 See Press Release of Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Oct. 31, 1955; Resolution adopted by the 85th Session of the International Chamber of Commerce, Oct. 26, 1955; Statement by Keith Funston, President of New York Stock Exchange, New York World Telegram, Nov. 18, 1955.

20 U. S. Mission to U.N., Press Release 2286, Nov. 24, 1955.

21 General Assembly, 10th Sees., Official Records, Third Committee, 674th Meeting, p. 248.

22 Ibid., 674th Meeting, p. 250.

23 U.N. Doc. A/3077, pp. 26, 30.

24 U. S. Mission to U.N., Press Release 2301, Nov. 29, 1955.

25 For earlier history see M. Brandon, “Nationalization before the United Nations,” International Bar Association, 5th Conference, Monte Carlo, 1954, p. 40.

26 U.N. Doc. B/2731, May 4, 1955, pp. 48–51.

27 For records of debate at 20th Session of the Economic and Social Council, July–August, 1955, see Docs. E/AC.7/SB.324–328; E/SB. 889–890.

28 U.N. Press Release 86/443, Oct. 11, 1955.

29 In the Matter of an Arbitration between Petroleum Development (Trucial Coast) Ltd. and the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, see 1 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (4th Ser.) 247 (1952); digested in 47 A.J.I.L. 156 (1953).

30 A. Farmanfama, “The Oil Agreement Between Iran and the International Oil Consortium: the Law Controlling,” especially “B. The Law Controlling Arbitration Between a Government and an Alien Corporation,” 34 Texas Law Review 259, 269, 287 (December, 1955).

31 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Italy, T.I.A.S., No. 1965 (signed Feb. 2, 1948), Art. V; 79 U.N. Treaty Series 171; see generally, Wilson, R. R., “Natural-Resources Provisions in United States Commercial Treaties,” 48 A.J.I.L. E55 (July, 1954).Google Scholar

32 See Shawcross, H., “Some Problems of Nationalisation in International Law,” International Bar Association, 5th Conference, Monte Carlo, 1954, pp. 14, 21.Google Scholar

33 See, for example, T.I.A.S., No. 3086 (Sept. 1, 1954).

34 Domke, M., “The Settlement of International Disputes,” an address to International Investment Law Conference, American Society of International Law, Washington, D. C., Feb. 24, 1956.Google Scholar See Shawcross, supra, note 32.

35 29 Dept. of State Bulletin 359, 360 (Sept. 14, 1953). See also Seidl-Hohenveldern, , “Völkerrechtswedrige Staatliche Eigentumseingriffe und deren Folgen,” 53 Die Friedens-Warte 1 (1955).Google Scholar This writer, while considering this a correct statement of this principle, expresses doubts as to its future application in practice (p. 9).

36 I.C.J. Statute, Art. 38 (1) b.

37 [1955] I.C.J. Reports 67 at 120, 122.

38 General Assembly Res. 824 (IX), Dec. 11, 1954.

* The foregoing article was completed before the Suez Canal case arose.