Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:20:29.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Settlement-of-Disputes Provisions in Axis Satellite Peace Treaties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Martin Domke
Martin Domke*
Affiliation:
American Arbitration Association
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
Current Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , October 1947 , pp. 911 - 920
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1947

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 Congressional Record, June 5, 1947, pp. 6567, 6573, 6578, 6584. The United States is not a signatory to the Finnish Treaty.

2 Treaties of Peace with Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Roumania and Finland (English Versions), Department of State Publication 2743, European Series 21: Article 90 (Italy) ; Article 38 (Bulgaria) ; Article 42 (Hungary) ; Article 40 (Roumania) ; Article 36 (Finland).

3 In this case the Four Ambassadors will not be restricted by the time limit provided in Article 86, namely the period not to exceed eighteen months from the coming into force of the Treaty where they “will represent the Allied Powers in dealing with the Italian Government in all measures concerning the execution and interpretation of the Treaty.” See Making the Peace Treaties, 1941-1947, Department of State Publication 2774, European Series 24, p. 44.

4 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 16 (1947), p. 1079; Senate Executive Report No. 4, 80th Congress, 1st Session, May 15, 1947, p. 20.

5 Article 83(5) further provides that “the parties undertake that their authorities shall furnish directly to the Conciliation Commission all assistance whieh may be within their power.”

6 These provisions shall not apply to the former Italian Colonies. “The economic and financial provisions to be applied therein will form part of the arrangements for the final dispositions of these territories pursuant to Article 23 of the present Treaty,” Annex XIV (19), namely to be “determined jointly by the Governments of the Soviet Union, of the United Kingdom, of the United States of America, and of France within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty.”

7 See Treaties of Peace with Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary. Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U. S. Senate, 80th Congress, First Session, on Executives F, G, H, and I, pp. 142, 145; Commentary on the Treaties of Peace with Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland, Misc. No. 2 (1947), (Cmd. 7026), London, p. 12; Hadsel, Winifred N., “The Five Axis Satellite Peace Treaties,” in Foreign Policy Reports. , Vol. 23 (1947), pp. 22, 24Google Scholar.

8 Senate Report No. 390, 80th Congress, 1st Session, June 26, 1947, p. 2.

9 Return of Italian property will be made in the same manner as those returns which have already been authorized by Congress, under an amendment of Sec. 32 (a) (2) and Section 33 of The Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended. See Martin Domke, The Control of Alien Property (1947), pp. 4, 226.

10 For references of recent foreign nationalization legislation, see Martin Domke, work cited, p. 314. The memorandum regarding settlement of certain wartime claims, of August 14, 1947, Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XVII (1947), p. 372, provides in its Article III (d) that compensation “shall be subject to the foreign exchange control regulations which may be in force in Italy from time to time.”

11 Senate Report No. 390, 80th Congress, 1st Session, p. 3 ; see also House Report No. 1009 and Congressional Record of July 25, 1947, p. 10325.

12 It should be mentioned that H. R. 4044, by Report 976 of July 17, 1947, reported out, proposed the classification of all war claims and the submission by a War Claims Commission of recommendations regarding compensation by the U. S. Government. This bill, however, refers only to property interests of German and Japanese nationals and not of any other (Axis Satellite) country. See House Report No. 976, 80th Congress, 1st Session, July 17, 1947, p. 2.

13 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XVII (1947), p. 375.

14 Public Law 690, 79th Congress.

15 See Congressional Record, July 23, 1947, p. 993, and Memorandum from the Commissioner of Patents to the Secretary of Commerce, of July 8, 1947, same, p. 9994.

16 For references, see Martin Domke, work cited, pp. 10, 279, 284. Adde : Eli E. Nobleman, Quadripartite Military Governmental Organisations and Operations in Germany, this Journal, Vol. 41 (1947), pp. 650, 653, and Office of Military Government for Germany (U. S.), Finance (Cumulative Review), Report No. 24 (1 July 1946-30 June 1947), p. 53 (External Assets).

17 Military Government Austria, Report of the United States Sigh Commissioner, May 1947, No. 19, p. 1.

18 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 16 (1947), p. 65.

19 Official Gazette of the Control Council for Germany, No. 2, November 30, 1945, p. 27; Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIV (1946), p. 283; United States Economic Policy toward Germany, Department of State Publication 2630, European Series 15, p. 88. Said the Monthly Report of Military Governor, U. S. Zone, No. 4, of November 20, 1945, p. 26 : “This law is an innovation in International Law, which, until this time, has regarded such assets as lying within the exclusive jurisdiction of the sovereign state within which they are located.”

20 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 14 (1946), p. 1101; United States Economic Policy toward Germany, work cited, p. 140.

21 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 17 (1947), p. 162; see Seymour J. Rubin, Allied-Swedish Accord on German External Assets, Looted Gold, and Related Matters, same, p. 155.

22 Questions relating to German external assets are also dealt with by the Inter-Allied Separation Agency in Brussels, where the Assembly referred them to a special Committee on German External Assets, composed of the member countries of Belgium, Canada, United States, France, and Great Britain. See First Report of the Secretary General for the Year 1946, p. 59, and for the arbitration provision of Part II, Articles 7 and 8 of the Separation Agreement of January 14, 1946, this Journal, Vol. 40 (1946), Supp. p. 126.

23 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XVII (1947), p. 388.

24 The provision of Annex 2 reads as follows :

Any dispute concerning the interpretation or execution of this understanding, which is not settled by direct diplomatic negotiations, shall be referred to a body composed of one representative each of the Governments of France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. Any such dispute not resolved by them within a period of two months shall, unless the parties to the dispute mutually agree upon another means of settlement, be referred at the request of either party to the dispute to a Commission composed of one representative of each party and a third member selected by mutual agreement of the two parties from nationals of a third country. Should the two parties fail to agree within a period of one month upon the appointment of the third member, the Secretary-General of the United Nations may be requested by either party to make the appointment. The decision of the majority of the members of the Commission shall be the decision of the Commission, and shall be accepted by the parties as definitive and binding.

25 Article 74 (B7b) further provides, with regard to reparations for Albania, Ethiopia, Greece, and Yugoslavia, that the Four Ambassadors “shall be competent to decide any point submitted to them by either Government or by any other Government entitled to reparations under part B of this Article.”

26 Reprinted in Occupation of Germany, Policy and Progress 1945-1946; Department of State Publication 2783, European Series 23, p. 159. In the Peace Treaties of February 10, 1947, again no definition as to the meaning of the term “German assets” has been given. For an arrangement e.g. with Finland providing for the transfer of German property to the Soviet Union, see Law of June 1, 1946, Forfattnmssamling No. 410, referred to in Foreign Commerce Weekly, Vol. 24 (1946), No. 3, p. 24, and further, The New York Times, February 4, 1947, p. 3, col. 1.

27 Occupation of Germany, as cited, p. 8.

28 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 17 (1947), p. 298.

29 Same, p. 225.

30 As to the application of the control test in such occurrences, see Martin Domke, work cited, p. 294.

31 This Journal, Vol. 39 (1945), Supplement, p. 90; see Graham, Armistice—1944 Style, this Journal, Vol. 39 (1945), pp. 286, 292.

32 See Report of Tripartite Conference of Berlin, Article XII, providing for a Revised Allied Control Commission Procedure in Rumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary in this Journal, Vol. 39 (1945), Supplement, pp. 245, 256; International Organisation, Vol. 1 (1947), p. 168.

33 Making the Peace Treaties, 1941-1947, as cited, p. 50.

34 See, for many arbitral instances, The Treaty of Versailles and After. Annotation of the Text of the Treaty, Department of State Publication 2724, Conference Series 9 (1947), pp. 445, 608, 624, 627; Report of the Committee on Adjudication of War Claimt in Proceedings of the Section of International and Comparative Law, American Bar Association (December, 1945), p. 53.

35 E.g., the Polish-American Mixed Commission to be established for the determination of compensation for American owners of enterprises taken over pursuant to the Polish Industries Nationalization Act of January 3, 1946; Agreement of December 27, 1947 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 16 (1947) p. 28.