We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 April 2017
The work of the recent claims commissions between Mexico and various other states constitutes an important body of material for the development of international adjudication. The revolutionary disturbances in Mexico between 1910 and 1920 resulted in considerable damage to aliens. On July 14, 1921, the Mexican Government by a circular letter announced its willingness to conclude claims conventions for the purpose of indemnifying such aliens. Six such claims conventions were concluded with the following governments: United States, France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, and Italy.
Under the convention of March 16, 1925. The decisions of this commission have, as yet, not been printed. The author consulted a mimeographed copy of thedecisions supplied by the Mexican Secretariat of Foreign Relations, bearing the title Sentendas y Decisiones de la Comision de Reclamaciones entre Mexico y Alemania. A short digest of the decisions will be found in Memoria de la Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, 1929-1930, p. 598. In this article, decisions are cited by reference to the number of the decision.
1 Memoria de la Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, 1925–1926, p. 49.
2 U. S.-Mexican Special Claims Convention, signed Sept. 10, 1923. U. S. Treaty Series, No. 676; Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 18 (1924), p. 143.
3 French-Mexican Claims Convention, signed Sept. 25, 1924. 122 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 590. In consequence of certain criticisms made by the President of Mexico in his annual message for 1929 to the Congress, the French and Mexican Governments concluded a supplementary convention on Aug. 2, 1930, by which two national commissioners were appointed to terminate the labors of the French-Mexican Commission. These commissioners were to consider certain specified claims, and only in case of disagreement was a third person to be named as umpire. Memoria de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, 1929–1930, p. 36. The work of this commission was terminated in 1931. Memoria de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, 1931–1932, p. 14.
4 German-Mexican Claims Convention, signed March 16, 1925. 52 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 93. This convention was drawn up in Spanish and German, the Spanish text to prevail in case of doubt.
5 British-Mexican Claims Convention, signed Nov. 19, 1926. 23 Martens, Nouveau Receuil Générale (3rd ser.), p. 114. The labors of the British-Mexican Commission were terminated Feb. 15,1930. Memoria de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, 1931–1932, p. 272.
6 Spanish-Mexican Claims Convention, signed Nov. 25, 1925. Convención que crea una Comisión Especial de Reclamaciones entre los Estados Unidos Mexicanos y España (Mexico, 1926).
7 Italian-Mexican Claims Convention, signed January 13, 1927. 20 Martens, ibid., p. 456.
8 In addition to the conventions here referred to, Mexico concluded with the United States a General Claims Convention, Sept. 8, 1923. U. S. Treaty Series, No. 678; Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 18 (1924), p. 147.
9 The conventions with Great Britain, France and the United States read: “by mutual agreement between the two Governments.” The change from “Governments” to “Presidents” was made at the request of Germany, but no reason for the change is apparent. See Memorandum of the German Legation at Mexico City, Feb. 7, 1925, printed in Case of Ketelsen y Degetau, Sues., Decision No. 54.
10 This is a curious provision, since the President of the Permanent Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration is always the Minister of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands.
11 A similar provision as to the nationality of the “third arbitrator is contained in all the Conventions, with the exception of those with the United States.
12 Memoria de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, 1925–1926, p. 49.
13 The German Government suggested the alternative use of English, announcing its j intention to appoint as commissioner a gentleman who possessed a better knowledge of : English than of Spanish. Memorandum of the German Legation at Mexico City, Feb. 7, 1925, supra, note 9.
14 Memoria de la Searetaría de Relaciones Exteriores, 1929–1930, p. 598.
15 Case of Guillenno Collignon, Decision No. 72.
16 Signed Dec. 5, 1882, 73 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 709: “Article XVIII. The contracting parties mutually agree to allow envoys, ministers, and other public agents: to enjoy the same privileges, exemptions and immunities as are granted, or may hereafter be granted, to the representatives of the most favored nation. Moreover, the contracting parties, animated by the desire of avoiding the discussion of questions which may disturb friendly relations, agree further that, as far as regards complaints brought forward by private individuals in connection with civil, criminal, or administrative matters, their diplomatic agents shall interfere in these cases only where there has been a denial of justice, or some unusual or unwarranted delay in giving effect to the verdict of a court, or where, after all legal means have been tried, there has been a direct violation either of existing treaties or of international law, public and private, as generally recognized by civilized nations.
“By agreement between the two parties, it is also stipulated that, except in cases where there has been any culpable negligence or want of due diligence on the part of the Mexican authorities or of their agents, the German Government shall not hold the Government of Mexico responsible for such losses, damages, or exactions as, in time L of insurrection or civil war, German subjects may suffer on Mexican territory at the hands of insurgents, or from the acts of those tribes of Indians which have not yet submitted to the authority of the government.” (Translation.)
17 The reference to Art. XVIII of the Treaty of Commerce necessitated the addition of the following article to the Claims Convention: “Article III. The German Reich appreciates the friendly attitude adopted by the United States of Mexico in consenting to its responsibility being fixed for the purposes of the present arrangement only, in t accordance with the principles of equity, and in refraining from basing a dismissal of these claims on Article XVIII of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation now in force between the two countries and signed on December 5,1882, at Mexico City. Accordingly the German Reich solemnly declares that it agrees that the present arrangement shall not modify the treaty in question either wholly or in part or either tacitly or expressly, and that it undertakes not to refer to the present arrangement as a precedent.”
18 Case of Frederico Griese, Decision No. 8.
19 In Case of Testamentaria del Sefior Hugo Bell, Decision No. 67.
20 Case of Georges Pinson, French-Mexican Claims Commission, Oct. 19,1928. McNair EL and Lauterpacht, Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1927–1928, p. 467.
21 Cases of Walter Heyn, G. A. Wislicenus, and Carlos Schmidt, Decisions No. 1, 2 and 3.
22 Case of Frederico Griese, Decision No. 8.
23 Spanish text: “sociedades, companías, asociaciones o personas morales alemanas”; German text: “Gesellschaften, Untemehmungen, Vereinigungen oder deutsche juristische Personen.”
24 See e.g., Cases of Rademacher, Miiller y Cía., Sues., en Liquidatión, Decision No. 25; E. Puttkamer, S. en C, Decision No. 29; Delires y Cía., Decision No. 31; Juan Laue y Cía., en Liquidation, Decisions Nos. 35 and 44; Ketelsen y Degetau, Sues., Decision No. 54.
25 See, particularly, Case of Juan Laue y Cia., en Liquidation, Decision No. 44.
26 In the case of Luis Wolf y Herederos de Leopoldo Wolf como sucesores de H. Wolf y Cía., Sues., Inc., Decision No. 33, claim was made unsuccessfully on behalf of German stockholders in a California corporation. Apparently, the majority of the capital stock was held by American nationals.
27 Case of Rademacher, Miiller y Cía., Sues., en Liquidaci6n, Decision No. 25.
28 Case of Juan Laue y Cía., en Liquidación, Decision No. 35. The German Agent quoted from a memorandum prepared by the Mexican Secretariat of Foreign Relations ; during the negotiation of the convention, which bears out his interpretation: “ Cuando se habla en singular en tirminos generates, queda comprendido el plural por lo que incurriria en una rendundancia innecesaria.”
29 Case of Juan Laue y Cía., en Liquidación, Decision No. 35. An allotment (cesión, Abtretung) is an assignment by the company to the claimant of a portion of the company’s claim corresponding to the interest of the claimant in the company’s capital stock.
30 Case of Schauenberg y Meyer, Sues., Decision No. 59.
31 Case of Herederos del Senor Arnoldo Vogel, Decision No. 38.
32 Case of Mexico Plantagen, Cm.b.H., Decision No. 27.
33 Article I of the Special Claims Convention with the United States (corresponding to the first paragraph of Article IV of the convention with Germany) contains the following: “and which claims have been presented to the United States for its interposition with Mexico, as well as any other such claims which may be presented within the time hereinafter specified” (within two years from the date of the first meeting of the Commission). The purpose of this clause in the convention with the United States is not entirely clear. It may have been intended to show definitely that only the United States Government might present claims to the Commission and not individuals. Its omission from the convention with Germany led to no ambiguity on the point, and it would seem to be mere surplusage.
34 Case of Enrique Rau, Decision No. 51.
35 “The following are Mexicans . . . (3) Aliens who acquire immovable property in the Republic . . . provided they do not express the wish to preserve their nationality.”
36 “The following are Mexicans . . . (9) Aliens acquiring real estate in the Republic, provided they do not declare their intention of retaining their nationality. At the time of making the declaration the alien shall declare to the officiating notary or judge whether he does or does not wish to acquire Mexican nationality as granted him by Section 3 of Article 30 of the Constitution, and the alien’s decision on this point shall appear in the document. If he chooses Mexican citizenship, or if he omits making any declaration on the subject, he may, within one year, apply to the Department of [Foreign] Relations, in order to comply with the requirements of Article 19, and be deemed a Mexican.” Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929), p. 428.
57 Accord: Case of Georges Pinson, French-Mexican Claims Commission, Oct. 19, 1928. McNair and Lauterpacht, op. cit., p. 9.
58 U. S. (William Mackenzie) v. Germany, United States-German Mixed Claims Commission, Decisions and Opinions, 1928, p. 628.
59 In the Case of Frederico Griese, Decision No. 8, the word “caused” was given an interpretation wide enough to hold that Madero forces which had occupied the claimant’s house and used it as a fort, had “ caused “ the damage resulting from the bombardment of the house by Orozco forces opposed to them.
In the Case of Carlos F. Haerter y Otto Gutkaes, Decision No. 15, it was held sufficient to show that damage was caused by Madero troops to impose liability on Mexico.
In the Case of Felix Rohen, Decision No. 6, claim was made for damages caused when money issued by the Conventionist forces in Vera Cruz in 1915, was declared void by the Carranza forces after their capture of the city. The claim was dismissed on the ground that the act of the head of the Carranza forces was neither a “revolutionary act” nor an act of “forces,” but an act of government.
40 As an example of the tendency of the Commission to take forces out of the first four categories, the decisions in regard to claims for damages caused by the Villa forces may be mentioned. In 1913 the Villa forces were forces of a government de facto (Case of Ernesto H. Goeldner, Decision No. 14); in 1915 they were insurrectionaries (Case of A. Stallforth, Decision No. 58; in 1919 they were bandits (Case of Guillermo Collignon. Decision No. 72). Cf. the Santa Isabel Claims, United States-Mexican Special Claims Commission, this Journal, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 172.
41 Case of Adolfo Stoll, Decision No. 47.
42 In accord with the view of the German Commissioner is the decision in the Case of Georges Pinson, French-Mexican Claims Commission, Oct. 19, 1928. McNair and Lauterpacht, op. cit, p. 427.
43 Cf. U. S. A. (George W. Hopkins) v. United Mexican States, United States-Mexican General Claims Commission, Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 42; this Journal, Vol. ; 21 (1927), p. 160.
44 The French-Mexican Convention contained no provision in regard to the decisions of the National Claims Commission. The president of the French-Mexican Commission held that the latter Commission preserved full freedom to deal with decisions of the National Claims Commission but would give great weight to the latter’s findings of fact. Case of Georges Pinson, McNair and Lauterpacht, op. (At., p. 462.
45 Case of Ernesto Tillman, Decision No. 19.
46 Case of Petera y Cía., S. en C, Decision No. 4; Case of Luis Andresen y Carlos Hardt, Decision No. 7.
47 The rules of the German-Mexican Commission were published in 1926 under the title: Convención de Reclamaciones entre los Estados Vnidos Mexicanos y Alemania y su Reglamento.
48 U. S. A. (Globe Cotton Oil Mills) v. United Mexican States, United States-Mexican General Claims Commission, Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 1.
49 See in particular, Case of Delires y Cía., en Liquidación, Decision No. 35.
50 United Mexican States (Fabian Rios) v. U. S. A., United States-Mexican General Claims Commission, Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 59.
51 Case of Carlos Klemp, this Journal, Vol. 24 (1930), p. 610.
52 All the decisions of the Commission, with the exception of the single interlocutory decision, were handed down between Jan. 11 and Feb. 18, 1930. This practice of postponing decisions until arguments on all cases were concluded would seem to be highly inconvenient to counsel, since in preparing cases they do not have as a guide earlier decisions by the Commission.
53 In the British-Mexican Commission, the Mexican Agency contended that affidavits could not be received because Article 4 of the convention did not contain the word “affidavits.” This contention was rejected by the Commission. Case of Virginia Lessard Cameron, Decisions and Opinions of Commissioners, 1931, p. 33. Apparently no use was made of affidavits before the German-Mexican Commission.
54 Case of Ernesto H. Goeldner, Decision No. 14; Case of Juan Andresen, Decision No. 17.
55 See e.g., Case of Guillermo Buckenhofer, Decision No. 5.
56 Case of Rademacher, Müller y Cía., Sues., en Liquidación, Decision No. 25.
57 Case of Max Müller, Decision No. 37.
58 Case of Adolfo Luedecke, Decision No. 16; Case of Waldemar Julsrud, Decision No. 41.
59 Case of Carlos Klemp, this Journal, Vol. 24 (1930), p. 610.
60 Case of Robert John Lynch, British-Mexican Claims Commission, Decisions and Opinions of Commissioners, 1931, p. 20; this Journal, Vol. 25 (1931), p. 754.
61 Case of Georges Pinson, French-Mexican Claims Commission, Oct. 19, 1928. McNair and Lauterpacht, op. cit., p. 297.
62 Case of Laura vda. de Plehan, Decision No. 13.
63 Case of E. Puttkamer, S. en C, Decision No. 29; Case of Max Müller, Decision No. 37.
64 Case of Testamentaria del Señor Hugo Bell, Decision No. 67.
65 Decision No. 31.
66 See Memorandum of the German Legation at Mexico City, Feb. 7,1925, reprinted in Case of Ketelsen y Degetau, Sues., Decision No. 54.
67 The United States-Mexican General Claims Commission allowed interest at the rate of 6%, except in cases involving claims for personal injury. The French-Mexican Commission allowed interest in cases involving forced loans and wrongful acts of governmental or revolutionary forces. Case of Georges Pinson, Oct. 19, 1928. McNair and Lauterpacht, op. cit., p. 277. No interest was awarded in any of the cases published in the 1931 volume of the British-Mexican Commission.
68 Case of Frederico Griese, Decision No. 8.
69 Memoria de la Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, 1929–1930, pp. 598 ff.
