Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:42:39.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Switzerland, International Law and World War II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Detlev F. Vagts
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The recent sudden upsurge of interest in Swiss behavior during and after World War II seems to call for a brief review of the international law issues that were relevant to that country’s decisions. Many of them, in particular the law of neutrals, have become obsolete and are obviously not understood by many commentators. Of course, to reach a judgment that the behavior of Switzerland was compatible with the rules of international law then in effect does not dispose of issues of humanity and morality. But it does contribute to explaining Swiss behavior, particularly since the Government in Bern was quite legalistic in its approach to the questions of the time.

Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 91 , Issue 3 , July 1997 , pp. 466 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1997

References

1 Kunz, Josef L., The Laws of War, 50 AJIL 313, 326 (1956)Google Scholar (stating that “neutrality was looked upon as something immoral, if not Criminal”).

2 Charles Callan, Tansili, America Goes to War (1938)Google Scholar.

3 For a review of neutrality practice in the period before Pearl Harbor, see Trefousse, Hans L., Germany and American Neutrality, 1939-1941 (1951)Google Scholar; the same events are seen in German perspective in Friedrich, Berber, Die Amerikanische Neutralität Im Kriege, 1939-1941 (1943)Google Scholar.

4 Admission of a State to the United Nations (Charter, Art. 4), 1948 ICJ Rep. 57, 112 (Advisory Opinion of May 28) (Krylov, J., dissenting).

5 See Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (1989) (no jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to hear a claim Argentina violated neutral rights by attacking neutral vessel on high seas). On the present status of neutrality in general, see Dietrich, Schindler, Transformations in the Law of Neutrality since 1945, in Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead 367 (Astrid, Delissen & Gerard, Tanja eds., 1991)Google Scholar. For a rare expression of interest in neutrality, see Neutrality, the Rights of Shipping and the Use of Force in the Persian Gulf War (Parts I & II), 82 ASIL Proc. 146, 594 (1988)Google Scholar.

6 1 Edgar, Bonjour, Geschichte der Schweizerischen Neutralität, ch. 9 (2d ed. 1965)Google Scholar. Bonjour discusses the difficult problems of establishing an authentic text of the declaration.

7 See Kurt, Bolliger, Die Neutralitätswahrung im Luftraum, in Schwedische und Schweizerische Neutralität Im Zweiten Weltkrieg 236 (Rudolf, Bindschedler et al. eds., 1985)Google Scholar [hereinafter neutralität].

8 See, e.g., Hans Senn, Schweizerische Dissuasionsstrategie im Zweiten Weltkrieg, in id. at 197.

9 For a collection of German war plans envisaging an invasion of Switzerland, see Werner, Roesch, Bedrohte Schweiz: Die Deutsche Operationspianungen Gegen Die Schweiz im Sommer/Herbst 1940 und die Abwehrbereitschaft der Armee In Oktober 1940 (1986)Google Scholar.

10 Werner, Rings, Raubgold Aus Deutschland: Die “Golddrehscheibe” Schweiz Im Zweiten Weltkrieg 146-52 (1985)Google Scholar.

11 Ulf Brandell, Die Transitfrage in der schwedischen Aussenpohtik während des Zweiten Weltkrieges, in Neutralität, supra note 7, at 82. For Allied protests, see 11 Whiteman Digest §33, at 405-07.

12 Richard Ochsner, Transit von Truppen, Einzelpersonen, Kriegsmaterial und zivilen Gebrauchsgütern zugunsten einer Kriegspartei durch das neutrale Land, in Neutralität, supra note 7, at 216. Such humanitarian transit is recognized in Article 14 of the Hague Convention on neutrality, see note 17 infra.

13 Swiss sources meticulously counted 6,501 violations of Swiss airspace. Fodor, Denis J. et al., The Neutrals 58 (1982)Google Scholar.

14 11 Whiteman Digest §9, at 207-09. See Settlement of Certain War Claims, Oct. 21, 1949, U.S.-Switz., TIAS No. 2112, 132 UNTS 163.

15 Geoffrey, Perret, Winged Victory: The Army Air Forces in World War II at 292 (1993)Google Scholar.

16 Ochsner, supra note 12, at 219.

17 Hague Convention respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, Oct. 18, 1907, Art. 7, 36 Stat. 2310, 1 Bevans 654. “A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet.” Article 9 reads in part: “Every measure of restriction or prohibition taken by a neutral Power in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 must be impartially applied by it to both belligerents.”

18 This rule is, curiously, to be found in the Hague Convention concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2415, 1 Bevans 723, to which landlocked Switzerland was a party. Article 6 says: “The supply, in any manner, directly or indirectly, by a neutral Power to a belligerent Power, of war-ships, ammunition, or war material of any kind whatever, is forbidden.”

19 Klaus Urner, Neutralität und Wirtschaftskrieg: Zur schweizerischen Aussenhandelspolitik, in Neutralität, supra note 7, at 256, 266-73.

20 7 Hackworth Digest §684, at 618-20.

21 Packard, Jerrold M., Neither Friend nor Foe: The European Neutrals in World War II at 249–52 (1992)Google Scholar.

22 Walter Funk, Reich Minister of Economics, is cited to that effect. Rings, supra note 10, at 7.

23 For a description of these by a negotiator, see Heinrich, Homberger, Schweizerische Handelspolitik im Zweiten Weltkrieg (1970)Google Scholar.

24 Id. at 109-12.

25 Urner, supra note 19, at 281.

26 Richard, Lamb, War in Italy: A Brutal Story, 1943-1945, at 284–95 (1993)Google Scholar.

27 Konrad Stamm, Die Vertretung fremder Interessen durch die Schweiz im Zweiten Weltkrieg, in Neutralität, supra note 7, at 307, 312-14.

28 Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, July 27, 1929, Art. 86, 47 Stat. 2021, 2 Bevans 932.

29 Christian, Streit, Keine, Kameraden, Die Wehrmacht und die Sowjetischen Kriegsgefangenen, 1941-1945, at 10 (1978)Google Scholar.

30 Stamm, supra note 27, at 314-15.

31 Erwin, Bucher, Zwischen Bundesrat und General 588 (1993)Google Scholar.

32 Jean-Claude, Favez, Une Mission Impossible? Le Cicr, les Déportations et les Camps de Concentration Nazis 367–75 (1988)Google Scholar.

33 Jacques, Picard, Die Schweiz und die Juden 1933-1945, at 455–61 (1994)Google Scholar.

34 Id. at 157-62.

35 Jan. 31, 1967, 19 UST 6223, 606 UNTS 267.

36 Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 184-87 (1993).

37 Raul, Hilberg, Perpetrators, Victims, Bystanders: The Jewish Catastrophe 1933-1945, at 258 (1992)Google Scholar.

38 Picard, supra note 33, at 301-02.

39 Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277, 1 Bevans 631.

40 Rings, supra note 10, at 79, 110-13.

41 Liquidation of German Property in Switzerland, May 25, 1946, 13 UST 1118.

42 There was a later agreement of Aug. 28, 1952, Liquidation of German Property in Switzerland, 13 UST 1131, which involved transfers among Germany, Switzerland and the Allied powers to settle the German property claims. The Swiss Government asserted that there were no assets of “heirless Nazi victims” but stated that it would give sympathetic consideration to their dedication to a charitable cause if any were found thereafter. See the letter related to the agreement, Aug. 28, 1952, id. at 1143.

43 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Mar. 14, 1997, at 58-59.

44 Opened far signature May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.

45 [1946] 5 Foreign Relations of The United States 216. 46

6 Winston, Churchill, The Second World War: Triumph and Tragedy 712 (1953)Google Scholar, quoted in Homberger, supra note 23, at 131, and Bucher, supra note 31, at 589. The context of the quotation was advice to Anthony Eden about the position the Allies should take regarding Switzerland vis-à-vis Stalin.

47 N.Y. Times, May 8, 1997, at Al.