Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:40:50.400Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Concept of Acquired Rights in International Law: A Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Ko Swan Sik
Get access

Extract

The submission to the United Nations International Law Commission of the second Report on Succession of States in respect of matters other than treaties by the Special Rapporteur, M. Bedjaoui, has aroused marked turbulence in the otherwise serene deliberations of the Commission. This commotion may be partly due to the methods used by the Special Rapporteur in fulfilling the task assigned to him by the Commission, but it is also due, at least in part, to the subject dealt with, viz. the status of ‘acquired rights’ in cases of state-succession. In reading the proceedings, one is struck by the courteousness of Professor Tammes's remarks, which nonetheless leave no doubt as to the position he held in the discussion.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 24 , Issue 1-2 , May 1977 , pp. 120 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1977

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. 1003rd meeting of the International Law Commission, 19 June 1969, I.L.C. Yearbook 1969 vol. I pp. 67–68.Google Scholar

2. Internationaal Publiek recht (2nd ed., 1973), p. 42.Google Scholar

3. Affolter, F., Das Intertemporale Privatrecht, vol. I (1902), p. 573.Google Scholar

4. Affolter, , op.cit. pp. 72, 574Google Scholar; de Saszy, E., “La doctrine de droits acquis en droit transitoire ou intertemporal”, 63 R.D.I.L.C. (1936) pp. 406–420.Google ScholarIdemKaeckenbeeck, G., “The Protection of Vested Rights in International Law”, 17 B.Y.I.L. (1936), pp. 1–18 at pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

5. Affolter, , op.cit. p. 575.Google Scholar

6. van Apeldoorn, L.J., Inleiding tot de studie van het Nederlandse recht (17th ed. by J.C.M. Leyten, 1972), p. 171Google Scholar: “Voor het ontstaan van een subjectief recht is nodig het plaatsgrijpen van een feit of gebeurtenis waaraan het objectieve recht dat ontstaan verbindt”.

7. van den Bergh, L.J. Hijmans, Opeenvolgen van Rechtsregels (1928) pp. 245 et seq.Google Scholar

8. Cf. Tavernier, P., Recherches sur l'application dans le temps des actes et des règies en droit international public (1970), pp. 246–249.Google Scholar

9. See Roubier, P., Le Droit Transitoire (2nd ed., 1960), p. 4Google Scholar: “elle [la science des conflits de lois dans le temps] est restée jusqu'ici confondue avec l'enseignement des principes généraux du droit civil”.

10. So far as Dutch doctrine is concerned the idea has been introduced by Hijmans v.d. Bergh's thesis in 1928, see supra, n. 7; for international law cf. also: Krause-Ablass, W.D., Intertemporales Völkerrecht (1970), p. 16 et seq.Google Scholar

11. Effet immédiat (Roubier), exclusieve werking (Hijmans v.d. Bergh), Ausschliesslichkeit (Affolter), Sofortige Einwirkung (Krause-Ablass).

12. Tavernier, , op.cit. p. 211Google Scholar: “situations en cours”, “facta pendentia”; Roubier, , op.cit., p. 35Google Scholar, referring to De Vareilles-Sommières, “Une théorie nouvelle sur la rétroactivité des lois”, Revue critique de législation et de jurisprudence 1893 pp. 444–468 and 493–519Google Scholar; Woodhouse, J.T., “The Principle of Retroactivity in International Law”, 41 Transactions [1955]Google Scholarof the Grotius Society (1956) pp. 69–89, at pp. 75–76.Google Scholar

13. E.g. Affolter, , cited by Hijmans v.d. Bergh, op.cit. p. 18.Google Scholar

14. According to Hijmans v.d. Bergh: “eerbiedigende werking”.

15. Cf. Hijmans v.d. Bergh, op.cit. pp. 15–17.

16. Cf. also Art. 4 of the Dutch Act on General Principles of Legislation, of 1829, and various constitutional provisions. Cf. Baade, H.W., “Intertemporales Völkerrecht”, 7 Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht (1957) pp. 229–256, at p. 230Google Scholar n. 8 and Woodhouse, , op.cit. pp. 70–71.Google Scholar

17. Saszy, I., Conflict of Laws in the Western, Socialist and Developing Countries (1974)Google Scholar, Part Five: “Intertemporal Conflict of Laws”, pp. 382–385.Google Scholar

18. Roubier, , op.cit. p. 95Google Scholar et seq., p. 113: “facultés légates”.

19. Roubier, , op.cit. p. 113.Google Scholar

20. Roubier, , op.cit. p. 117 et seq.Google Scholar

21. Cf. Roubier, , op.cit., pp. 115, 119 et seq.Google Scholar

22. Roubier, , op. cit., p. 115Google Scholar, referring to the system developed by Aubry and Rau.

23. Roubier, , op. cit., p. 91.Google Scholar Cf. Hijmans v.d. Bergh, op.cit. p. 21. According to Von Savigny the two rules were nothing but two aspects of one and the same principle. The conclusion has occurred on the international level, inter alia regarding the rights of international officials. See Tavernier, , op.cit., pp. 244–245.Google Scholar

24. Roubier, , op. cit., p. 168Google Scholar: “le droit acquis n'est plus qu'un pavilion qui couvre toute espèce de marchandises”. Cf. also Tavernier, , op.cit. p. 243.Google Scholar

25. Woodhouse, , op. cit. in n. 12Google Scholar, has demonstrated that an (arbitrary) definition of the term is necessary in order to make sense of the principle.

26. Cf. Lemaire, W.L.G., Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (1968) pp. 385–386.Google Scholar

27. Affolter, , op. cit. pp. 264, 573.Google Scholar See also Wichser, Werner R., Der Begriff des wohlerworbenen Rechts im internationalen Privatrecht (1955) p. 7.Google Scholar

28. It was, inter alia, used by way of a corrective to the previously reigning comity theory which much too often tended to simple application of the lex fori. See Wichser, , op.cit., p. 10Google Scholar; Carswell, R.D., “The Doctrine of Vested Rights in Private International Law”, 8 I.C.L.Q. (1959) pp. 268–288, at p. 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. “Motivating theories” according to Wichser's terminology, op.cit. at p. 19.

30. See for a short survey of this theory, Carswell, , op. cit. at p. 271 et seq.Google Scholar

31. ‘Normative theories’ in Wichser's terminology.

32. See Lagarde, H. Batiffol-P., Droit International Privé vol. 1 (6 th.ed., 1974) p. 401 et seq.Google Scholar

33. Aiminjon, P., “La notion des droits acquis en droit international prive”, 44 RdC (1933 II) pp. 5–109.Google Scholar See also Wichser, , op.cit. p. 1Google Scholar: “Die Theorien der wohlerworbenen Rechte […] sind schon alt. Nur hat man unter dem Begriff des wohlerworbenen Rechts und unter dem Grundsatz, dass wohlerworbene Rechte zu schützen seien […] in verschiedenen Zeiten Verschiedenes verstanden”; and Müller, H., Der Grundsatz des wohlerworbenen Rechts im internationalen Privatrecht (1935) p. 7Google Scholar

34. See Pillet, A., “La théorie générale des droits acquis”, 8 RdC (1925–III) pp. 489–537 at p. 497Google Scholar; Wichser, , op.cit. p. 95Google Scholar et seq.; Carswell, , op.cit. at p. 278Google Scholar et seq. The latter author refers to the modification which was introduced to Dicey's general principle No. 1, after which it read: “Any right which has been acquired abroad under the law of any civilised country which is applicable according to the English rules of Conflict of Laws is recognised …” (Emphasis added). Dicey's Conflict of Laws (6th. ed., 1949) p. 11.Google Scholar

35. Niederer, W., Ein führung in die allgemeinen Leheren des internationalen Privatrechts (3rd ed., 1961) p. 320–321Google Scholar; Batiffol, , op. cit. p. 459 et seq.Google Scholar

36. G. Kaeckenbeeck's course at the Hague Academy of International Law, entitled “La protection internationale des droits acquis” indicates that the rights concerned are not themselves rights derived from international law. 59 RdC (1937–I) pp. 321–419.

37. See for this aspect, Tavernier, , op.cit., pp. 240 et seq.Google Scholar

38. See, with special reference to this latter aspect: Commission v. Council, [1973] European Court Reports 575, and Westzucker GmbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratstellen für Zucker, [1973] E.C.R. 723, and on the whole question, Püttner, G., “Der Schutz wohlerworbener Rechte im Gemeinschaftsrecht”, 10 Europarecht (1975) pp. 218–229Google Scholar, and cited there at p. 218 n. 3.

39. E.g. Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

40. Cf. Bedjaoui, , Second report on succession in respect of matters other than treatiesGoogle Scholar, A/CN.4/216/Rev.1, in I.L.C. Yearbook 1969–II pp. 69 et seq., par. 61 et seq.; Tammes in 1003rd meeting, 19 June 1969, I.L.C. Yearbook 1969–I p. 67.

41. P.C.I.J. Ser.A/B No. 63 (1934).

42. O'Connell, D.P., State Succession in Municipal Law and Intersnational Law, vol. 1: Internal Relations (1967) p. 240Google Scholar et seq.: Kaeckenbeeck, Hague course, p. 340. Reference is often made to the 19th century decision in U.S. v. Percheman, cited by Kaeckenbeeck, , op.cit. in BYIL, p. 9Google Scholar, and Hague course, p. 340–341.

43. P.C.I.J. Ser. B No. 6 p. 36.

44. Cf. Kaeckenbeeck in BYIL, p. 13.

45. Cf. the cases of treaty arrangements affirming the rules, listed by O'Connell, , op.cit. p. 269 et seq.Google Scholar

46. IdemO'Connell, , op.cit. p. 264Google Scholar, citing Brierly in 58 RdC (1936) p. 65.

47. In BYIL, p. 13–14.

48. Op. cit., pp. 237, 265.

49. Ibid. p. 266.

50. Loc. cit. at pp. 80–81, 84–5.

51. Waldock in 1005th meeting, 20 June 1969, I.L.C. Yearbook 1969–I p. 74; Castañeda in 1006th meeting, 23 June 1969, ibid. p. 81; Ruda in 1006th meeting, 23 June 1969, ibid. p. 82; Tsuruoka in 1007th meeting, 24 June 1969, ibid. p. 87.

52. Lauterpacht, H., The Development of International Law by the International Court (1958) pp. 319–322.Google Scholar

53. Article 9 of Protocol XII read: “In the territories detached from Turkey under the Treaty of Peace […] the State which acquires the territory is fully subrogated as regards the rights and obligations of Turkey towards the nationals of the other Contracting Powers …”.

54. P.C.I.J. Ser. A No. 2 (1924).

55. Martens N.R.G., 3e Série, vol. 16, p. 645.

56. Cf. Castren, 1001st meeting, 17 June 1969, I.L.C. Yearbook 1969–I p. 63.

57. Op. cit. p. 250.

57a. Op. cit. p. 242.

58. Formulated by Waldock, I.L.C. Yearbook 1964–II, p. 9.

59. 89 B.F.S.P. p. 57.

60. Op. cit at p. 240.

61. For contradictory interpretations of the decision, see Baade, , op.cit., p. 245Google Scholar; Blum, Y.Z., Historic Titles in International Law (1965) p. 204Google Scholar; Tavernier, , op. cit, p. 98.Google Scholar

62. 11 R.I.A.A. p. 147.

63. 11 R.I.A.A. p. 167.

64. I.C.J. Rep. 1952 p. 176.Google Scholar

65. P.C.I.J. Ser. A/B No. 53.

66. Blum says that the Court relied “on the criteria laid down in the Island of Las Palmas [sic] Case”, op. cit, p. 104.

67. Tavernier, , op. cit., p. 91Google Scholar; Schwarzenberger, G., International Law as applied by International Courts and Tribunals vol. I (3rd. ed. 1957) p. 23.Google Scholar

68. 11 R.I.A.A. p. 11; Tavernier, , op. cit. pp. 94–95.Google Scholar

69. Schwarzenberger, G., International Law as applied by International Courts and Tribunals, vol. 2 (1968) p. 562 et seq.Google Scholar

70. Blum, , op. cit. p. 52–53.Google Scholar

71. It is a matter for argument whether it is possible to think of a (claim to a) right which is neither directed against an existing right nor directly flowing from an existing general rule of law. This uncertainty springs from the ‘freedom spheres’ in international law owing to the scarcity of detailed rules. There is considerable truth in the Australian view, cited by Blum, , op. cit. p. 318Google Scholar, according to which the use of the concept of historic rights in a situation in which existing fishing practices in part of the sea which was originally uncontested high seas and later claimed by a State as territorial sea, is creating confusion: the practices would be lawful, not necessarily by historic title, but by virtue of the current general rules of law, viz. the freedom of the high seas. Second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, p. 82.Google Scholar

72. Each of these conceptions of historic title were used by the adversaries in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case. While Britain was of the opinion that the Norwegian method of measurement of the width of the territorial sea by straight baselines was an exception to existing international law, Norway asserted that its alleged historic rights to apply its method of measurement did not constitute an exception, since the so-called “generally applicable rule” had not achieved the degree of acceptance of a general rule of customary international law. Blum, , op. cit., pp. 231–234.Google Scholar The Court, evading the controversy, ruled that there did exist general rules which, however, provide enough room to allow specific methods of measurements like the Norwegian one.

73. Blum, , op. cit., p. 58Google Scholar (citing Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice in 30 BYIL (1953) p. 68–69), and p. 311 where he has exclusively in mind adverse rights.

74. Of the same character: Article 13(1) of the 1958 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas.

75. A/Conf.19/C.1/L.10, reproduced in Second UN Conference etc., Official Records, p. 169.Google Scholar

76. Cf. Blum, , op. cit., p. 322.Google Scholar

77. Lay, S.H., Churchill, R., Nordquist, M. (eds.), New Directions in the Law of the Sea, vol. 1 (1973) p. 85Google Scholar et seq. See also the US-Mexican Agreement of 27 October 1967, ibid. p. 78 et seq., and the Arrangement relating to fisheries in waters surrounding the Faroe Islands, of 19 December 1973, New Directions etc. vol. 4 (1975) p. 171 et seq.Google Scholar

78. Fisheries Convention of 9 March 1964, 581 U.N.T.S. p. 57.

79. Examples of other provisions of the Informal Single Negotiating Text Part II, A/Conf.62/ WP.8/Part II, relating to respect for existing (acquired) rights, are: Article 19 (4)(b); Article 35 paras (a) and (c), Article 118 par. 7, Article 122. On the other hand, no specific clause on existing rights is to be found in Articles 34–44.

80. See also the Third Report on the Law of Treaties by Sir H. Waldock, I.L.C. Yearbook 1964–11, pp. 5–6 5 at pp. 10–12. Cf. Rosenne, S., “The Temporal Application of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”, 4 Cornell International Law Journal (1970–1971) pp. 1–24.Google Scholar

81. I.C.J. Rep. 1950 p. 128.Google Scholar

82. I.C.J. Rep. 1952 p. 28.Google Scholar

83. Draft 1966, Art. 24, I.L.C. Yearbook 1966–II p. 211.

84. Commentary on draft article 24, I.L.C. Yearbook 1966–II p. 212 para. 3.

85. The I.L.C. commentary, ibid., 265, mentions, by way of example, Art. XIX of the Convention on the Liability of Operators of Nuclear Ships of 1962, and Art. 65 of the European Human Rights Convention.

86. Waldock, Third Report, I.L.C. Yearbook 1964–II p. 12, para. 17; I.L.C. commentary to (1964) draft article 57, ibid. p. 179 and to (1966) draft art. 24, I.L.C. Yearbook 1966–II p. 213.

87. I.L.C. Yearbook 1966–II p. 215.

88. 69 U.N.T.S. p. 208.

89. B.F.S.P. vol. 162p. 415; 24 Far Eastern Survey (1955) No. 5 pp. 75–76.Google Scholar

89a. Denunciation of the Union by diplomatic note of 21 February 1956, text in the Netherlands Parliamentary Papers, Doc. Bijl.Hand. II 1955/56–4264 No. 1, and based on the Act No. 13 of 3 May 1956; denunciation of the Nationality Treaty by Act No. 4 of 10 April 1969.

90. See Jaarboek van het Departement van Buitenlandse Zaken [Yearbook of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs] 1974–1975 pp. 148–152.Google Scholar

91. Royal Decree of 11 September 1975, Stb. 1975 No. 502.

91a. This is, so far as Indonesia is concerned, in accordance with paragraph 6 of the explanatory memorandum to the Denunciation Act stating that persons who have made the option are to retain the opted nationality.

92. Cf. Fauchille, P., Traité de droit international public, vol. 1 Part 3 (1926), pp. 302–303.Google Scholar

93. Op. cit., p. 42: “Maar omvat het nieuwe verdrag niet al de oude partijen, dan kunnen reeds verkregen rechten van deze natuurlijk niet door de opvolging worden aangetast”.

94. First Report (Lauterpacht) on the Law of Treaties, I.L.C. Yearbook 1953–II p. 156: Second Report, I.L.C. Yearbook 1954–II p. 133.

95. Cf. the dissenting opinions by Judges Van Eysinga and Schücking in the Oscar Chinn case relating to the incompatibility between the General Act of Berlin of 1885 and the Convention of St. German-en-Laye of 1919.

96. See Kearney, R.D. and Dalton, R.E., “The Treaty on Treaties”, 64 A.J.I.L. (1970) pp. 495–561 at pp. 523–525Google Scholar; Dixit, R.K., “Amendment or Modification of Treaties”, 10 I.J.I.L. (1970) pp. 37–50.Google Scholar

97. See the I.L.C. commentary, I.L.C. Yearbook 1966–II p. 217 (para. 11).

98. Kaeckenbeeck in his Hague Course, loc. cit., p. 359.

99. Op. cit., p. 20.

100. Bos, M., “Het politiek karakter van het zogenaamd intertemporaal volkenrecht”, in: Met eerbiedigende werking (Collection of Essays in honour of L.J. Hijmans van den Bergh, 1971), pp. 53–66.Google Scholar