Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:22:53.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Recent French Decisions on the Relationship Between Treaties and Municipal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2017

Louis C. Bial
Louis C. Bial*
Affiliation:
Of the New York Bar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relationship between treaties and municipal law has been widely discussed in this country in recent years. The discussion, however, has been limited to the problems raised by the proposed Constitutional amendments. Thus, the possibility of a conflict between the Constitution and a treaty, or between a treaty and State law, has been debated, while the possibility of a conflict between a treaty and a Federal statute has been hardly ever mentioned.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , July 1955 , pp. 347 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1955

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 Whitton, and Fowler, , “Brieker Amendment—Fallacies and Dangers,” 48 A.J.I.L. 23 ff. (1954);Google Scholar Sutherland, , “The Bricker Amendment, Executive Agreements, and Imported Potatoes,” 67 Harv.L.Rev. 281 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Preuss, , “On Amending the Treaty-Making Power: A Comparative Study of the Problem of Self-Executing Treaties,” 51 Mich.L.Rev. 1117 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Perlman, , “On Amending the Treaty Power,” 52 Col.L.Rev. 825 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and many others.

2 The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U. S. 616 (1870); Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580 (1884); Potter, , “International and National Law in the United States,” 19 A.J.I.L. 315 ff. (1925)Google Scholar; Corwin, The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation (1953) 420 ff.

3 Constitution of the French Republic, 2 Peaslee, Constitutions of Nations (1950) 8, Arts. 26 ff.

4 Constitution of the Italian Republic, 2 Peaslee, op. cit. at 279, Art. 10.

5 Basic Law of the Federal Republie of Germany, 3 Peaslee, op. cit. at 599, Art. 25. The Bundesgerichtshof (Supreme Federal Court) has held in a decision of March 3, 1954, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1954) 1050, that this provision applies to treaty obligations.

6 Constitution of the Kingdom of The Netherlands, as amended June 22, 1953, Art. 65, quoted in Van Panhuys, , “The Netherlands Constitution and International Law,” 47 A.J.I.L. 537, 540 (1953).Google Scholar

7 Translation from 2 Peaslee, op. cit. supra note 3, at 12. These provisions have inspired the similar provisions of Art. 64 of the Syrian Constitution, enacted in 1953. See Tarazi, , “La supéiriorité du traité sur la loi dans la nouvelle Constitution syrienne,” 3 Revue de Droit Int. pour le Moyen-Orient 176 (1954)Google Scholar.

8 Mirkine-Guetzévich, Les Constitutions Européennes (1951) 118.

9 “The Relation of International Law to Internal Law in the French Constitutional System,” 44 A.J.I.L. 641 (1950)Google Scholar. See also Rice, , “The Position of International Treaties in Swiss Law,” 46 Ibid. 641 (1952).Google Scholar

10 These cases are believed to be representative of some of the problems which arose in connection with the new constitutional provisions relating to treaties. There are many other cases in which the relationship between treaties and municipal law was in issue; these, and other French cases relating to public international law, must be left to subsequent studies.

11 8 De Clercq, Recueil des Traités de la France 374; 52 British and Foreign State Papers 139.

12 J. O. 1938.12923, Duvergier, Lois et décrets, N. S. 38.1022. Cf. 2 Niboyet, Traité de droit international privé français 172 ff. (2d ed. 1951), on history and interpretation of this statute.

13 See, for a list of such treaties, Freyria, 41 Rev. crit. Droit int. privé 482 (1952). The Consular Convention between the United States and France, signed at Washington on Feb. 23, 1853, also contains a clause assimilating citizens of one party to nationals of the other party.

14 Cour de Paris, 13th ch. corr., Jan. 29, 1951, Juris-Classeur Périodique (La semaine juridique) hereinafter referred to as J.C.P.), 1952.II.7056.

15 Cour de Paris, 16th eh. corr., Jan. 24, 1952, Ibid.

16 Cour de Lyon, 4th ch. corr., Feb. 16, 1952, J.C.P.1952.II. 6996.

17 Comments in J.C.P.1952.II.6996 and 7056.

18 41 Rev. crit. Droit int. privé 475 (1952).

19 Trib. corr. Seine, 12th ch.bis, May 9, 1952, J.C.P.1952.II.7130, Gazette du Palais (hereinafter referred to as Gaz. Pal.) 1952.2.42.

20 Trib. corr. Seine, 17th ch., May 9, 1952, 41 Rev. crit. Droit int. privé 474 (1952). Orbech was not a Spanish citizen, but a Dane. He relied upon the Additional Articles to the Franco-Danish Convention of 1842, of Feb. 9, 1910 (6 Nouv. Rec. Gén. des Traités (3rd ser.) 889), Art. 1 of which provides that Danish subjects in France and French citizens in Denmark shall enjoy with regard to the exercise of trades and professions the same rights, privileges, liberties, favors, immunities, and exemptions as are or will be accorded nationals.

21 In addition to Benoist, note 17 supra, and Freyria, note 18 supra, see Chavrier, note, Reeueil Dalloz (hereinafter referred to as D.) 1952.J.801; Savatier, “A propos des cartes de commerçant: les traités d’établissement et l’individualisation de la condition des étrangers,” D.1953.Ch.21; Sarraute & Tager, Droit international privé (1953), Gaz. Pal. 1954, March 5, 9, 12 and 16; Loussouarn, 5 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Commercial (hereinafter referred to as Rev.Trim.Droit Com.) 677 and 909 (1952), 6 Id. 244, 529, 780 (1953); Sialelli, Survey of French Judicial Decisions, 79 Journal du Droit International (hereinafter referred to as Clunet) 874 (1952), 80 Id. 361 (1953).

22 Loc. cit. supra note 18.

23 Trib. corr. Montluçon, July 17, 1952, J.C.P.1952.II.7292.

24 Dec. 11, 1952, J.C.P.1953.II.7379.

25 Trib.corr. St.Nazaire, Nov. 6, 1952, Gaz.Pal.1953.1.23.

26 Trib. corr. Seine, Dee. 20, 1952, Gaz.Pal.1953.1.144, aff’d. Cour de Paris, 13th ch. corr., 2d sec., April 1, 1954, Gaz. Pal. 1954, May 15–18, discussed infra. Defendant relied on the Franco-Swiss Treaty of Establishment of Feb. 23, 1882 (9 Nouv.Rec.Gén. des Traités (2d ser.) 95), which is a treaty of assimilation (Arts. 1 and 3), and also contains a most-favored-nation clause (Art. 6).

27 Trib. corr. Seine, March 11, 1953, Gaz.Pal.1953.1.248.

28 Note 16 supra.

29 Cass. crim., March 24, 1953, J.C.P.1953.II.7659, 80 Clunet 645 (1953).

30 Note in Gaz.Pal.1953.1.332; Weill and Leauté, J.C.P.1953.II.7659; Brouchot, 42 Rev. crit. Droit int.privé 573 (1953).

31 Chambres réunies, April 27, 1950, D.1950.J.379. On the position of the Conseil d’Etat, highest French administrative court, see Virally, “Le Conseil d’Etat et les traités internationaux,” J.C.P.1953.I.1098.

32 Assembléd plénière civile, March 11, 1953, J.C.P.1953.II.7673, note by Ourliac and de Juglart.

33 Cour de Paris, 13th ch.corr., 1st sec., March 2, 1954, J.C.P.1954.II.8070, Gaz.Pal. 1954, May 15–18.

34 Cour de Toulouse, May 21, 1954, D.1954.J.446.

35 Cour de Limoges, Nov. 19, 1953, Gaz.Pal.1954, April 14–16; see comments by Sialelli in 81 Clunet 114 (1954).

36 A recent case employing the same formula is Procureur Général Cour Cassation, Cass.civ. July 6, 1954, J.C.P. 1954.IV.123.

37 Note 33 supra.

38 D.1954.J.280.

39 Gaz.Pal.1954, May 15–18.

40 Ibid.

41 Note 29 supra.

42 For a recent application of the principle see Allgater, Cass, crim., June 29, 1954, J.C.P.1954.IV.119, where the court refused application of Art. 192 of the Code of Military Justice because it violates the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War of July 27, 1929. The court expressly stated as its ratio decidendi that the Convention is the superior law under Art. 28 of the Constitution.

43 Note 29 supra.

44 Notes 38, 39 and 40 supra. See also: Capello v. Marie, Cass.civ. Feb. 10, 1948, Recueil Sirey 1948.I.94, Annual Digest 1948, Case No. 112, p. 327.

45 Notes 38, 39 and 40 supra.

46 Note 29 supra.

47 Note 35 supra.

48 Cases cited in notes 31 and 32 supra.

49 Note 18 supra.

50 Preuss, loc.cit.supra note 9, at 658 ff., and Rice, loc.cit.supra note 9, at 646.

51 Arts. 91 ff.

52 Cour de Pau, Dee. 15, 1953, 8. 1954.II.124.