No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
The world today is bipolarised with the two giants, and the camps they lead, confronting each other in the stances of the cold war along the entire length of the international frontier. At various points along this frontier, particularly in Asia, the cold war has ‘hotted up’ into a shooting war; but such outbreaks have been sporadic and after an initial outburst have quietened down. However in Europe, the centre of most major wars during the last century, there has been one continuing fester with Berlin as its core, and the relations of the Great Powers in that city have reflected the temperature of the cold war and the proximity of a shooting war. Every issue between States is conditioned by both political and legal considerations, and it is the purpose of this paper to examine the legal status of Berlin, ignoring in so far as that is possible the political factors governing the problem.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1963
References
1. See opening paragraph of Hall, , Mandates, Dependencies and Trusteeship, 1948Google Scholar: “The international frontier is formed by the zones where great-power interests come together in conflict. It is the main line of structural weakness in the earth's political crust—the main fissure where wars break through. The powers are constantly at work on the frontier trying to patch up the peace by international arrangements of various kinds” (p. 3).
2. U.K., H.M.S.O., Selected Documents on Germany and the Question of Berlin 1944–1961Google Scholar, Cmnd. 1552 (1961) (cited as Blue Book), p. 27.Google Scholar
3. November 14, 1944, ibid., p. 29.
4. Later documents in the Blue Book (e.g., p. 45)Google Scholar use the spelling “C(K)omman-datura”. Friedmann, in his Allied Military Government in Germany, 1947, spells it ‘Kommandatura’ and comments: “A word not known in English, French or Russian, but similar to words known to all these languages. The choice of this word for the allied government of Berlin was a nice piece of diplomacy' (p. 53, n. 9). In fact, some of the documents state that ‘Komendatura’ is a Russian word.
5. Blue Book, p. 31.Google Scholar
6. February 11, 1945, ibid., p. 34.
7. Ibid., p. 35.
8. Ibid., p. 37 (capitals in original).
9. The term is here used to describe the alliance against the Axis. At that date the institution which is now known by that title was described as the United Nations Organization.
10. Blue Book, p. 38.Google Scholar
11. Ibid., p. 43.
12. Ibid., p. 45.
13. August 2, 1945, ibid., p. 49.
14. See, e.g., Nuremberg Judgment, Cmd. 6964 (1946), p. 38Google Scholar, and Schwarzenberger, , International Law, vol. 1, 1957, pp. 154–5, 298.Google Scholar
15. October 6, 1948, S.C. Journal, Third Year, No. 115 (reprinted in U.S., Dept. of State Press Release, No. 821, October 8, and summarised under title “The Rights of the United States in Berlin”, 43 Amer. J.I.L. 1949, p. 92 at p. 93).Google Scholar
16. McNair, , Law of Treaties, 1961, ch. XVI.Google Scholar
17. October 1, 1951, 46 Amer. J.I.L., 1952, Supp., p. 13.
18. See, e.g., Leprette, , “Le Statut de Berlin”, 1 Annuaire Français de Droit International, 1955, p. 123, at p. 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Stettinius, , Roosevelt and the Russians, 1950, p. 43.Google Scholar
20. Clay, , Decision in Germany, 1950, p. 25.Google Scholar
21. Churchill, , The Second World War, vol. 6, 1954, pp. 526–7Google Scholar; Truman, , Year of Decisions, 1955, pp. 226–9Google Scholar, respectively (The first English text of the Truman-Stalin letters was published by the writer as an Appendix to his “Berlin and the United Nations”, 3 World Affairs (New Series), 1949, p. 23 at p. 41).Google Scholar
22. Clay, , op. cit., pp. 24–29.Google Scholar
23. Loc. cit., n. 15 above, p. 93.Google Scholar
24. November 22, 30, 1945, Blue Book pp. 60–64.Google Scholar
25. Ibid., p. 95.
26. Clay, , op. cit., pp. 28–29.Google Scholar
27. H.M.S.Q., Germany: an account of the events leading up to a reference of the Berlin Question to the United Nations, Cmd. 7534 (1948), pp. 49–50.Google Scholar
28. Memorandum of Agreement, 12 2, 1946, Cmd. 6984 (1946).Google Scholar
29. Detailed accounts of the history of Soviet interference may be found in DrJessup, 's statement to the Security Council, loc. cit., n. 15 above, and in Cmd. 7534 (1948).Google Scholar
30. Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Moscow, The Soviet Union and the Berlin Question, 1948, pp. 25–31.Google Scholar
31. July 1, 1948, Blue Book, p. 113.Google Scholar
32. December 21, 1948, ibid., p. 114.
33. Simpson, , “Berlin: Allied Rights and Responsibilities in the Divided City”, Int. and Comp. L.Q. 1957, p. 83, at p. 87.Google Scholar
34. See, e.g., the writer's “Berlin and the United Nations', loc. cit., n. 21 above.Google Scholar
35. 1933. Series A/B, No. 53, p. 71 (Hudson, , World Court Reports, vol. 3, p. 192).Google Scholar See also Porteadick Claims (1843) 1Google ScholarLaPradelle-Politis, , p. 512.Google Scholar
36. 1909, Scott, , Hague Court Reports, 1916, p. 111, at p. 116.Google Scholar
37. 1931, U.N., Reports of Int. Arb. Awards, vol. 2, p. 1113, at p. 1123Google Scholar (English text in Green, , International Law Through the Cases, 1959, p. 175).Google Scholar
38. Loc. cit., n. 30 above, p. 50.Google Scholar
39. Sir Alexander Cadogan at the Security Council, S.C. Journal, Third Year No. 118.
40. French Note, 07 6, 1948Google Scholar, loc. cit., n. 27 above, p. 49.Google Scholar
41. Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812) 7 Cranch 116, 136, 139.Google Scholar
42. August 2, 1945, loc. cit., n. 27 above, p. 22.Google Scholar
43. August 12, 1948, ibid., p. 31.
44. The Times, London, 02 5, 1949.Google Scholar
45. May 4, 1949, Blue Book, p. 115.Google Scholar
46. June 20, 1949, ibid., p. 122.
47. April 8, 1949, ibid., p. 115.
48. Bishop, , “The ‘Contractual Agreements’ with the Federal Republic of Germany”, 49. Amer. J.I.L. 1955, p. 125, at p. 129.Google Scholar
49. May 8, 1949, Peaslee, , Constitutions of Nations (2nd ed.), vol. 2, p. 30.Google Scholar
50. May 12, 1949, Blue Book, p. 117.
51. May 14, 1949, ibid.
52. June 7, 1949, ibid., p. 120.
53. Memorandum on Measures Agreed … on the Programme for Germany, Cmd. 7677 (1949).Google Scholar For a full account of the political factors which contributed to this change in the status of the Western Zones, and for summaries of the relevant documents, see Bathurst, and Simpson, , Germany and the North Atlantic Community, 1956.Google Scholar
54. This paper is not concerned with the involved problems relating to the independent sovereignty of the German Democratic Republic. In view of the fact that some States have recognised this Republic de jure, and an increasing number have entered into relations with it de facto, it is considered unnecessary to indulge in the political overtones which are involved in writing the name of this entity in inverted commas. As to the legal status of the two Germanies, see Marschall von Bieberstein, Zum Problem der völkerrechtlichen Anerkennung der beiden deutschen Regierungen, 1959: and as to eastern Germany, see Pinto, , “The International Status of the German Democratic Republic”, 86 Journal du Droit International (Clunet), 1959, p. 313.Google Scholar
55. Simpson, , loc. cit., n. 33 above, p. 98.Google ScholarPeaslee, , op. cit. p. 80Google Scholar, gives the text of the Law promulgating the Constitution, but the text of the Constitution is that adopted in August 1950 (p. 59).
56. October 8, 1949, Statement by General Chuikov, Blue Book, p. 124.Google Scholar
57. November 11, 1949, ibid., p. 127.
58. See, e.g., McNair, , International Law Opinions, vol. I, 1956, p. 131Google Scholar: “… the question whether to grant or not to grant recognition is mainly one of policy, not of law”.
59. Loc. cit., n. 16 above.
60. 1923, Series A, No. 1, p. 30 (Hudson, , op. cit., vol. 1, p. 179).Google Scholar
61. See Schwarzenberger, , op. cit., p. 51.Google Scholar
62. Peaslee, , International Governmental Organizations, vol. 1, 1961, p. 1860.Google Scholar
63. The Times, 08 23, 1962.Google Scholar
64. Ibid., August 24, 1962.
65. Hartje v. Yugoslav Military Mission (1954)Google ScholarInt. Law Reports 1954, p. 116.Google Scholar
66. The Times, 03 7, 1951.Google Scholar
67. Communiqué of Western Foreign Ministers, 09 19, 1950Google Scholar, Blue Book, p. 136.Google Scholar
68. August 29, 1950, ibid., p. 135.
69. March 8, 1951, ibid., p. 140.
70. Loc. cit., n. 65 above, pp. 118, 119.Google Scholar
71. May 26, 1953, Blue Book, p. 157.Google Scholar
72. Ibid., p. 159.
73. Ibid., p. 161.
74. May 28, 1953, ibid., p. 174.
75. March 25, 1954, ibid., p. 186.
76. April 8, 1954, ibid., p. 187.
77. Final Act of the Nine Power Conference, 10 3, 1954Google Scholar, Cmd. 9289 (1954), p. 11.
78. Paris Conference, 10 20–23, 1954, Cmd. 9304 (1954).Google Scholar
79. The Times, 11 26, 1954.Google Scholar
80. May 14, 1955, Blue Book, p. 212.Google Scholar
81. September 13, 1955, ibid., p. 225.
82. September 20, 1955, ibid., p. 226.
83. Ibid., p. 228.
84. September 28, October 3, 1955, ibid., pp. 229, 230.
85. October 18, 1955, ibid., p. 230.
86. The Times, 11 30, 1955.Google Scholar
87. December 1, 1955, cited ibid., December 2, 1955.
88. Ibid.
89. In re Kratusman (1955)Google Scholar, Int. Low Reports 1955, p. 987, at p. 990.Google Scholar
90. 52 Amer. J.I.L. 1958, p. 355.Google Scholar
91. See, for distaste for this view, primarily it would appear on emotional grounds, Grewe, , “Other Legal Aspects of the Berlin Crisis”, 56Google Scholaribid., 1962, p. 510 at p. 512.
92. September 9, 1958, Blue Book, p. 308.Google Scholar
93. November 27, 1958, ibid., p. 318 (italics added).
94. See, e.g.,.United States reply, 12 20Google Scholar, and British Note, December 31, 1958, ibid., pp. 335, 346.
95. Wright, , “Some Legal Aspects of the Berlin Crisis”, 55 Amer. J.I.L. 1961, p. 959, at pp. 960, 962.Google Scholar
96. Loc. cit., nn. 2, 7, above.
97. Loc. cit., n. 93 above, p. 328.Google Scholar
98. For discussion of these proposals see Ydit, , Internationalised Territories, 1961, pp. 83–91.Google Scholar
99. Loc. cit., n. 94 above.Google Scholar
100. Ibid., p. 341.
101. January. 10, 1959, Blue Book, p. 351, at p. 359.Google Scholar
102. March 19, 1959, ibid., p. 382 (italics added).
103. See Int. Comm. of Jurists, The Berlin Wall: A Defiance of Human Rights, 1962.Google Scholar
104. Friedmann, , “Legal and Political Aspects of the Berlin Crisis”, Columbia Soc. of Int. Law, Bulletin, 11/12 1961, p. 3 at p. 4.Google Scholar