Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:43:27.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Non-Liability of States For Damages Suffered by Foreigners in the Course of a Riot, an Insurrection, or a Civil War*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Harmodio Arias
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is always advisable while laying down any rule whereby human actions are framed, to ascertain the basis on which such principle or rule rests. Such an inquiry is by no means useless in dealing with the science of international law, even though one may regard this branch of knowledge as being merely “positive”; for the conduct of states, just as that of individuals, is generally modelled according to some idea or principle. It will not be unprofitable, therefore, to begin this study with a note, short as it must necessarily be, on the grounds of the liability of states, so that in this manner it may become comparatively easy to ascertain what are the rights of states whose citizens or subjects have suffered damages in the course of riots or insurrections that have taken place in a foreign country.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , October 1913 , pp. 724 - 766
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1913

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.)

Footnotes

*

A bibliography of authorities cited is printed at the end of the article.—H. A. 724

References

1 See Dicey,Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, pp. 74–81.

2 See Funck–Bretano et Sorel, Précis du droit des gees, Book I, ch. xii, pp. 224 et seq.

3 The whole question is lucidly discussed by Tchernoff, Protection des nationaux résidant à l’étranger, pp. 125–50.

4 Cited by Von Bar in Revue de droit international et de législation comparée, 2e série,Tome I, p. 470.

5 Annuaire de l’ Institut de droit international, Vol. XVIII, p. 234..

6 Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international, Vol. XVIII, p. 237.

7 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. XXII, No. 1, July, 1903, p. 72.

8 Ibid., p. 76.

9 Cited by Bureau, Le Conflit Italo–Colombian (Affaire Cerruti), p. 2, note 1.

10 Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. I, §§ 13, 289, 344, 384.

11 This point is clearly dealt with by Anzilotti who expresses himself in the following manner: “L’obligation imposeéà cet égard par le droit international est remplie par in promulgation des règles juridiques assurant aux érangers la, condition voulue et par leur application convenable aux cas qui se présentent. L’Etat n’a pas a garantir les étrangers des torts que d’autres individus peuvent lgur faire, ni de dommages gulls peuvent eprouver.” (Revue générale de droit international public, Tome XIII, p. 26.)

12 It is hardly necessary to point out that dissent may be expressed from the treatment of the subject from this point of view by the school of writers who object to the notion of a “positive” international law, and who prefer to found their theories on principles of abstract justice or natural law. But to follow any other course would be to fall back on the antiquated notion of a law of nature, the interpretation of which is not only difficult but impossible.

13 Vide Leroy–Beaulieu, L’État modern et ses functions, p. 98.

14 VideAnzilotti, in Revue générale de droit international public, Tome XIII, pp. 303 et seq.; Fiore, Nouveau droit international public, Pradier-Fodéré’s translation, Vol. I, pp. 336 et seg.

15 Rivier,Print–ipea du Droit des Gene, Vol. II, p. 43.

16 His actual words are as follows: “Admettre dans l’espèce la responsabilité des gouvernements, c’est-à-dire le principe d’une indemnité, ce serait créer un privilège exorbitant et funeste, essentiellement favorable aux Etats puissants et nuisible aux nations plus faibles, établir une inégalité injustifiable entre lee nationaux et les étrangers. D’un autre côté, en sanctionnant la doctrine que nous combattons, on porterait, quoique indirectement, une profonde atteinte à un des éléments constitutifs de l’independence des nations, celui de la juridiction territoriale.” (Calvo, Le Droit international théorique et pratique, Vol. III, § 1280.)

17 Annuaire, Vol. XVIII, p. 253 et seq.

18 Le Droit international Codifié, par. 380 bis.

19 Cited by Moore,Digest of International Law, Vol. VI, p. 952.

20 Traité de droit international public Européen et Américain, Tome 1, pp. 348–349.

21 Pillet, Les Lois actuelles de la guerre, p. 29.

22 International Law, Vol. I, p. 223.

23 Institutes of Naturaì Law, Vol. II, ch. ix, pp. 492–493.

24 Annuaire de l’Institut de droll international, Vol. XVII, p. 96. M. Gaston de Leval (Report of the 24th Conference of the International Law Association, p. 206) thinks that “riots cannot, as a rule, be called actes de force majeure.” Apparently he tries to explain his statement by saying that riots “are not generally provoked by an unknown cause, and the duty of every government is to prevent them.” This limitation of the meaning of the phrase “actes de force majeure” would seem to be too absolute. Pestilences are effects of known causes and every government considers itself bound to prevent them. But at the same time all admit that they are acts of force majeure because there are times when it is impossible to prevent such evils.

25 International Law, Vol. I, p. 330. Among the authors that deny the existence of any liability on the part of the state for damages sustained by foreigners in the course of a rebellion the following may be mentioned:

Anzilotti, La responsabilité international des États à raison des dommages soufferts par des strangers in Revue générale de droit international public, Vol. XIII, p. 305; Bon-Ms, Manuel de droit international public, Sec. 326; Calvo, op. cit., Vol. III, 1280 et seq., also in Revue de droit international et de législation comparée, Tome I, p. 417; Hall, International Law, p. 219; Lawrence, Commentaire sur les éléments du droit international de Henry Wheaton, Vol. III, p. 135; Leval, De la protection diplomatique des nationaux à l’étranger, 103; Olivart, Del reconocimiento de beligerancia, p. 108; PhiIlimore, Commentaries upon International Law, Vol. I, 318; Pittard, La protection deg nationaux à l’étranger, pp. 281–6; Seija.s, El derecho internacional hispano–americano, Vol. I, pp. 50 et seq., Vol. II, pp. 7,308, Vol. III, pp. 308 et seq., Vol. IV, pp. 507–11; Torres Caicedo, ,Mis ideas y mis principios; Wiesse, Reglas de derecho international aplicables à las guerras civiles, 43–45.

25a Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. VI, pp. 886–887, citing Lawrence,Commentaire sur Wheaton, III, 128.

26 Op. cit., Vol. III, p. 145.

27 Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d series, Vol. CXII, pp. 701–2.

28 Ibid., Vol. CXI, p. 719.

29 Cited by Baty, International Law, pp. 97–8.

30 Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. VI, p. 812.

31 Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. VI, p. 955.

32 Moore, International Arbitrations, Vol. II, p. 1622.

33 See Hall, International Law, p. 220.

34 Cited by Baty, International Law, p. 151.

35 Cited by Seijas, El derecho internacional hispano-americano, Vol. III, pp. 445 et seq.

36 M. Thiers is reported to have said in the Chamber that although the French claim for compensation for damages suffered by Frenchmen against a Latin American state had been reduced to three millions—the sum actually obtained—yet it had been found that the claimants had only a right to two millions! (Seijas, op. Cit.)

37 See Calvo, op. cit., Vol. I, §§ 187–203.

38 Torres Caicedo, Mis ideas y mis principios, Vol. II, p. 315.

39 Ibid., p. 314.

40 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 47, p. 353. A full discussion of the case is found in Seijas, op. cit., and also in Moore, International Arbitrations, Vol. II, p. 1361 et seg.

41 Parliamentary Papers, 1872 (c. 569).

42 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 70, p. 493.

43 Corresponclencia diplomàtica de Mexico, Tomo II, p. 163.

44 See Revue generale de droit international public, Vol. I, p. 164. In 1895, however, the Brazilian Government granted the sum of 900,000 francs to the families of three French citizens who had been killed during the civil troubles of 1893. (See the same review, Vol. II, p. 340).

45 Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. VI, p. 892.

46 Bureau, Affaire Cerruti. Professor Bureau quite rightly says that “the Cerruti case was a new episode to be added to the history—already too long and too well known—of the abuses of force of which European states have sometimes been guilty towards the Republics of Central and South America.” (Ibid., p. 2.)

47 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 68, p. 776; Vol. 69, p. 376.

48 Ibid., Vol. 77, pp. 807, et seq.

49 See his works entitled Mis ideas y mitt principles and Unión latino–americana.

50 Art. XI, spud Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités, 2e série, Tome XV, p. 843; or in British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 77, p. 1094.

The following treaties also contain similar provisions:

Belgium and Mexico (1895), Art. 15, Martens, op. cit., Vol. 23, p. 73;

Belgium and Venezuela (1884), Art. 18, “ “ 11, p. 620;

Colombia and Germany (1892), Art. 20, “ “ 19, p. 842;

Colombia and Italy (1892), Art. 21, “ “ 22, p. 313;

Colombia and Spain (1894), Art. 4, Olivart, Tratados de Espana, Vol. 11, p. 64;

Costa Rica and Salvador (1882), Art. 16, Martens, Vol. 14, p. 242;

Costa Rica and Salvador (1885), Art. 18, Martens, Vol. 14, p. 248;

Ecuador and Mexico (1888), Art. 3, “ “ 18, p. 752;

Ecuador and Spain (1888), Art. 3, Olivart, “ 11, p. 27;

Germany and Mexico (1882), Art. 18, Martens, “ 9, p. 484;

Honduras and Salvador (1878), Art. 14, “ “ 14, p. 198;

Honduras and Spain (1894), Art. 4, Olivart, “ 11, p. 156;

Italy and Mexico (1889), Art. 12, Martens, “ 18, p. 771;

Mexico and Nicaragua (1900), Art. 9, “ “ 31, p. 25;

Mexico and Nicaragua (1902), Art. 9, “ “ 31, p. 426;

Mexico and Santo Domingo (1889), Art. 11, “ “ 18, p. 762;

Mexico and Santo Domingo (1890), Art. 11, “ “ 24, p. 55;

Mexico and Sweden (1885), Art. 21, “ “ 13, p. 690;

Nicaragua and Salvador (1883), Art. 14, “ “ 14, p. 232;

Peru and Spain (1897), Art. 4, Olivart, “ 12, p. 348.

51 Article 7, apud Martens, Vol. 24, p. 17.

In the following treaties the provision of non-liability is absolute also:

Argentina and Peru (1874), Art. 30, Martens, Vol. 12, p. 450;

Guatemala and Honduras (1885), Art. 29, “ “ 14, p. 273;

Guatemala and Salvador (1885), Art. 29, “ “ 14, p. 273;

Honduras and Salvador (1885), Art. 29, (i “ 14, p. 273;

Holland and Mexico (1897), Art. 10, 1` “ 33, p. 187;

Mexico and Salvador (1893), Art. 23, ’1 “ 20, p. 872.

52 Annuaire, Vol. XVIII, p. 255.

53 The delegations of the United States and Hayti refrained from voting.

54 Constitution of Salvador, Art. 46.

55 Law of Feb. 21, 1894, Arts. 82, 83, State Papers, Vol. 86, p. 1291.

56 Law of Nov. 26, 1888, Art. 11, State Papers, Vol. 79, 168.

57 Law of July 17, 1888, State Papers, Vol. 79, pp. 166-7. See also Constitution of Hayti, Art. 185; Constitution of Honduras, Art. 142; Constitution of Venezuela, Art. 15; Law of Venezuela of April 16, 1903, Art. 17.

58 Article 9 of the treaty between Ecuador and Salvador (1890), Martens, Vol. 24, p. 18.

A somewhat similar clause is found in the following treaties:

Colombia and Germany (1892), Art. 20, Martens, Vol. 19, p. 842;

Colombia and Italy (1892), Art. 21, “ “ 22, p. 313;

Colombia and Spain (1894), Art. 6, Olivart, “ 11, p. 65;

Costa Rica and Salvador (1882), Art. 15, Martens, “ 14, p. 242;

Costa Rica and Salvador (1885), Art. 17, “ “ 14, p. 248;

Ecuador and Mexico (1888), Art. 6, “ “ 18, p. 752;

France and Mexico (1886), Art. 11, “ 15, p. 843;

France and Venezuela (1885), Art. 5, “ “ 12, p. 684;

Germany and Mexico (1882), Art. 18, “ “ 9, p. 484;

Guatemala and Honduras (1885), Art. 29, “ “ 14, p. 273;

Guatemala and Salvador (1885), Art. 29, “ “ 14, p. 273;

Holland and Mexico (1897), Art. 16, “ “ 33, p. 188;

Honduras and Salvador (1878), Art. 13, “ “ 14, p. 198;

Honduras and Salvador (1885), Art. 29, “ “ 14, p. 273;

Mexico and Nicaragua (1900), Art. 13, “ “ 31, p. 25;

Mexico and Nicaragua (1902), Art. 13, “ “ 31, p. 427;

Mexico and Salvador (1893), Art. 23, “ “ 20, p. 871;

Mexico and Santo Domingo (1889), Art. 11, Martens, Vol. 18, p. 761;

Mexico and Santo Domingo (1890), Art. 11, “ “ 24, p. 55;

Mexico and Sweden (1885), Art. 21, “ “ 13, p. 690;

Nicaragua and Salvador (1883), Art. 13, “ “ 14, p. 232;

Peru and Spain (1897), Art. 6, Olivart, “ 12, p. 349;

Peru and the United States (1870), Art. 37, Martens, “ 1, p. 107;

Peru and the United States (1887), Art. 34, “ “ 22, p. 72;

Salvador and Venezuela (1883), Art. 5, “ “ 14, p. 216.

In the following treaties the clause is not so wide, for it only provides that aliens who take part in civil war may be treated as nationals, and, therefore, have no right to diplomatic intervention except in the case of denial of justice:

Belgium and Ecuador (1887), Art. 3, Martens, Vol. 15, p. 741;

Belgium and Venezuela (1884), Arta 8, “ “ 11, p. 616;

Ecuador and Spain (1888), Olivart, “ 9, p. 27;

Honduras and Spain (1894), Art. 3, “ “ 11, p. 155.

59 State Papers, Vol. 96, p. 647.

60 State Papers, Vol. 77, p. 116.

61 Law of December 20, 1886, Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. VI, p. 269.

62 Law of August 25, 1892, Arts. 10 and 12, State Papers, Vol. 84, p. 645.

63 Law of February 21, 1894, Art. 71, State Papers, Vol. 86, p. 1290.

64 Article 15 of the Constitution of Honduras of September 2, 1904; see also Article 37 of the Hondurian law of April 10, 1895,State Papers, Vol. 87, p. 707.

65 Second Pan-American Conference, Convention on the rights of aliens, Art. 1. See also law of Guatemala of February 21, 1894, Art. 47, State Papers, Vol. 86, p. 1287: law of Venezuela of April 16, 1903, Art. 1, State Papers, Vol. 96, p. 647.

66 See Art. 46 of the Constitution of Salvador; Art. 83 of the law of Guatemala of February 21, 1894, State Papers, Vol. 86, p. 1291.

67 See, for instance, Constitution of Argentina, Art. 100; Constitution of Brazil, Art. 59; Constitution of Bolivia, Art. 111; Constitution of Mexico, Arts. 97 and 98; law of Venezuela of April 16, 1903, Art. 16; law of Guatemala of February 21, 1894, Art. 75.

68 The United States have consented to sign only one treaty containing this provision, viz., the treaty with Peru of 1870, renewed in 1887. In 1890 the Government of Ecuador proposed to that of the United States the incorporation into their treaty relations of a stipulation precluding “recourse to diplomatic remedies and claims before exhausting all other means of redress, through the courts of justice, or proper authorities, including appeals against judges and courts.” The State Department blandly declined the proposal on the ground that such stipulations, “although not novel in design, are yet so in form, and might for that reason be open to misconstruction.” (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. VI, p. 270.)