Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:36:57.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artukovic v. Boyle. 107 F. Supp. 11

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

William W. Bishop Jr
William W. Bishop Jr*
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors
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
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 1953 , pp. 319 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1953

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 See 5 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 374–375 (1943). See also Lukich v. Department of Labor and Industries, 176 Wash. 221, 223, 29 Pac. (2d) 388 (1934); Urbus v. State Compensation Commissioner, 113 W. Va. 563, 169 S.E. 164 (1933).

2 13 Dept. of State Bulletin 1020; 14 id. 728.

3 The court said that the cases regarded as holding that the executive determination of the continuing effect of a treaty was conclusive, were only dicta, or all depended on Terlinden v. Ames, which it distinguished. Not only did that case involve a treaty which provided for accession by other German states, but the court said that in Terlinden v. Ames there had been repeated action by the Executive, through extradition under the treaty, rather than mere words. The court remarked that “In the instant case … not one single instance of extradition under the Serbian Treaty of 1902, since the conclusion of the first World War has been called to the Court’s attention, and for that matter not one single instance of extradition under the treaty since its effective date in 1902.” The court said that in Disconto Gesellschaft v. Umbreit, 208 U. S. 570 (1908), the treaty involved was assumed to be in force; that in Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447 (1913) it was a question of interpretation on which the Court followed the Executive; and that in Clark v. Allen, 331 U. S. 503 (1947), this Journal, Vol. 42 (1948), p. 201, the Court examined for itself the question of effectiveness of a treaty rather than just accepting the Executive’s view.