Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:27:31.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Recognition Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Edwin D. Dickinson
Edwin D. Dickinson*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The prolonged interval during which the United States declined to recognize the government functioning in Mexico, and the still more protracted period during which recognition has been withheld from the de facto government in Russia, have produced some unusually interesting problems with respect to the appropriate judicial attitude toward an unrecognized de facto foreign government. In Mexico the recognized Carranza regime was overthrown by revolution in the spring of 1920, and General Obregon was inaugurated president on the first of December in the same year, yet it was not until August 31, 1923, that the Obregon Government received recognition from the United States. In Russia the recognized Provisional Government of Kerensky fell before the onslaughts of the Bolsheviki in December, 1917, and the Soviet Government established by the Bolsheviki soon acquired virtually undisputed control of most of the old empire, yet the Soviet règime remains unrecognized by the United States even at the present day. During intervals thus abnormally prolonged it has become increasingly difficult for the courts to resolve the cases which arise by applying the simple arbitrary formula that all matters of recognition are for the political departments to decide. More and more it has become evident that cases may arise in which the courts, without deprecating in any way the general principle which the formula is conceived to express, may be justified in taking account in some degree of de facto foreign governments from which recognition has been withheld. It is proposed to consider here only the more recent English and American cases. The cases considered may be grouped under three heads.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 1925 , pp. 263 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © by the American Society of International Law 1925

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 For the earlier cases and more exhaustive discussion of the questions here considered, aee Dickinson, “Les Gouvemements ou £tats non reconnus en Droit Anglais et Americain,” Revue de Droit International et de L$$$gislation Compar$$$e, 3d series, Vol. IV, pp. 145–178;Google Scholar same article in English, 22 Michigan Law Review, 29–45, 118–134.Google Scholar

2 City of Berne in Switzerland v. Bank of England (1804), 9 Ves, 347.Google Scholar

3 The Penza (1921), 277 Fed. 91;Google Scholar The Rogdai (1920), 278 Fed. 294;Google Scholar The Rogday (1920), 279 Fed. 130.Google Scholar

4 Borchard, “Can an Unrecognized Government Sue?” 31 Yale Law Journal 534.Google Scholar

5 Russian Socialist Government v. Cibrario (1921), 191 N. Y. Supp. 543;Google Scholar Preobazhenski v. Cibrario (1922), 192 N. Y. Supp. 275;Google Scholar Russian Socialist Republic v. Cibrario (1923), 235 N.Y. 255.Google Scholar

6 See this JOTJRNAL, vol. 17, p. 742.Google Scholar

7 See The Rogdai, 278 Fed. 294, supra;Google ScholarPubMed The Rogday, 279 Fed. 130, supra;Google ScholarPubMed Russian Government v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. (1919), 293 Fed. 133;Google Scholar (1923), 293 Fed. 135;Google Scholar (1924), 265 U. S. 573;Google Scholar 23 Columbia Law Review 787.

8 Russian Government v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 293 Fed. 135, supra. Google ScholarPubMed

9 Russian Constitution of July 6, 1923;Google Scholar French text in L’Europe Nouvelle, Sept. 8, 1923, p. 1153.Google Scholar

10 The Gagara, [1919] p. 95;Google Scholar The Annette, The Dora, [1919] p. 105;Google Scholar McNair, “Judicial Recognition of States and Governments, and the Immunities of Public Ships,” British Year Book of International Law (1921–22), 57–74.Google Scholar See also The Gul Djemal (1921), 296 Fed. 563.Google Scholar

11 (1923) 70 N. Y. Law Journal, 209.Google Scholar See also (1924) 264 U. S. 440.Google Scholar

12 43 Statutes at Large, Part 2, p. 110.Google Scholar

13 The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals is unreported at the time of writing. The author has been supplied with a copy of the opinion through the courtesy of counsel.

14 Wulfsohn, v. Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic (1922), 192 N. Y. Supp. 282;Google Scholar (1922), 195 N. Y. Supp. 472.Google Scholar

15 (1923) 234 N. Y. 372.Google Scholar See also Nankivel v. Omsk All Russian Government (1922), 197 N. Y. Supp. 467;Google Scholar (1923) 237 N. Y. 150.Google Scholar

16 See 22 Michigan Law Review, 126;Google Scholar 37 Harvard Law Review, 349.Google Scholar

17 See Siplyak, v. Davis (1923), 276 Pa. 49.Google Scholar

18 Kolundjija, v, Hanna Ore Mining Co. (1923), 155 Minn. 176.Google Scholar

19 Garvin, v. Diamond Coal and Coke Co. (1924), 278 Pa. 469.Google Scholar

20 Aksionaimoye Obschestvo Dlia Mechanicheskoyi Obrabotky Diereva, A. M. Luther, v. James Sagor & Co., [1921] 1 K. B. 466.Google Scholar

21 [1921] 3 K. B. 532.Google Scholar In Fenton Textile Association v. Krassin (1921), 38 T. L. R. 269, it was held that Krassin was not entitled to the usual diplomatic immunities.Google Scholar

22 White, , Child, , and Beney, v. Simmons (1922), 127 L. T. R. 571.Google Scholar

23 Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Comptoir d’Escompte de Mulhouse, [1923] 2 K. B. 630.Google Scholar

24 The case arose before France had recognized the Soviet Government.

25 Banque Internationale de Commerce de Petrograd v. Goukassow, [1923] 2 K. B. 682.Google Scholar Both this case and the case cited in note 23 preceding were overruled in the House of Lords upon the ground that Soviet nationalization decrees were not intended to end the existence of the Russian banks and upon grounds of estoppel. It was not doubted that effect should be given to Soviet decrees. (1924) 40 T. L. R. 837.Google Scholar

26 See Pelzer, v. United Dredging Co. (1922), 22 Michigan Law Review 29, 30;Google Scholar (1922) 193 N. Y. Supp. 675, 676;Google Scholar (1922) 196 N. Y. Supp. 342;Google Scholar Bourne v. Bourne (1924), 204 N. Y. Supp. 866, 873;Google Scholar Joint Stock Co. of Yolgakama Oil & Chemical Factory v. National City Bank of New York (1924), 206 N. Y. Supp. 476, 480.Google Scholar

27 (1922) 199 N. Y. Supp. 355.Google Scholar Cf. (1922) 196 N. Y. Supp. 364, 367.Google Scholar

28 (1924) 204 N. Y. Supp. 69.Google Scholar

29 (1924) 239 N. Y. 158, 145 N. E. 917.Google Scholar

30 Favorable comment by the present writer upon the decision of the court below (22 Michigan Law Review, 131) had reference only to the court’s attitude toward the de facto situation in Russia and was not intended to imply approval of the decision on the question of impossibility of performance.

31 (1924) 203 N. Y. Supp. 232;Google Scholar (1924) 205 N. Y. Supp. 472.Google Scholar

32 (1925) 239 N. Y. 248, 146 N. E. 369, 370, 371.Google Scholar See also Russian Reinsurance Co.v. Stoddard (1925), 207 N. Y. Supp. 574, and Hennenlotter, v. Norwich Union Fire Ins. Soc. (1924), 207 N. Y. Supp. 588, reported since this article was written.Google Scholar