Author: Paul Frederick SimonsonPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Enemy property
Languages : en
Pages : 468
Book Description
Private Property and Rights in Enemy Countries
Author: Paul Frederick SimonsonPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Enemy property
Languages : en
Pages : 468
Book Description
Private Property and Rights in Enemy Countries and Private Rights Against Enemy, Nationals and Governments
Author: Paul F. SimonsonPublisher:
ISBN: 9781332276134
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 470
Book Description
Excerpt from Private Property and Rights in Enemy Countries and Private Rights Against Enemy, Nationals and Governments: Under the Peace Treaties With Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey The plan of the war, which was engineered by the War party in Germany in the year 1914, aimed at the complete annihilation of Germany's adversaries in every field. The framers of this plan and their agents, who carried it into execution, exhibited a thoroughness, which would have called for nothing but praise, had it been applied in a worthy cause. It was manifest to the most casual observer ever since the early stages of the war, that Germany had determined, not merely to vanquish her enemies on the battlefield, but also to ruin them commercially, so that she would have nothing to fear from them in the sphere of trade after the cessation of hostilities, whatever might be the result of the conflict between the rival armies. As the inhabitants of the invaded territories of the Allied Powers know to their cost, the instructions issued by the German officers to rob and destroy private property did not fall upon deaf ears, and the material damage suffered by the inhabitants of those districts (as, indeed, by the nationals of the Allied Powers in general) by reason of the war has been on a scale unparalleled in the history of the world. One of the important duties entrusted to the representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers, who attended the Peace Conference, was to insert in the Treaty with Germany provisions with a view to securing (a) the restitution in specie of such property in Germany belonging to nationals of the Allied Powers as was still in existence, when the Peace Treaty came into force, and (b) adequate compensation for the total or partial loss of property. It was realised by all responsible persons, that the process of reconstruction initiated by the Allied Powers would be expedited or retarded according to the measure of success achieved by their representatives in the performance of their task, and that it was of vital importance to each of those Powers individually to secure for its nationals (in the shape of cash or other property) out of the general wreckage of the wealth of the world as large a share as possible, in order to effect restitution or provide compensation. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
PRIVATE PROPERTY & RIGHTS IN E
Author: Paul Frederick B. 1864 SimonsonPublisher: Wentworth Press
ISBN: 9781374523975
Category : History
Languages : en
Pages : 474
Book Description
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
PRIVATE PROPERTY AND RIGHTS IN ENEMY COUNTRIES AND PRIVATE RIGHTS AGAINST ENEMY, NATIONALS AND... GOVERNMENTS
Author: PAUL F. SIMONSONPublisher:
ISBN: 9781033617137
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Book Description
Private Property and rights in enemy countries and private rights against enemy nationals and governments under the peace treaties with Germany, Austria, Hungary, and the Turkey
Author: Paul F. SimonsonPrivate Property and Rights in Enemy Countries and Private Rights Against Anemy Nationals and Goverments Under the Peace Treaties with Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey
Author: Paul Frederick SimonsonPublisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 436
Book Description
The Confiscation Fact
Author: Iredell MearesPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Confiscations
Languages : en
Pages : 82
Book Description
Foreign and Other Economic Rights Upon Conquest and Under Occupation
Author: James Thuo GathiiPublisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Book Description
Under customary international law, conquest does not extinguish pre-existing private property and contract rights. However, the applicability of this classical rule has been restricted in scope and at best it has been applied inconsistently over the last century. This article examines the rationales underlying the rule and the reasons accounting for the uneven and inconsistent application of its prohibition of extinction of private property and contract rights upon conquest. I argue that the primary reason accounting for its uneven and inconsistent application has been to facilitate the political expediency and hegemony of conquering states over weaker and vulnerable states. Hence, courts have held treaties embodying this rule that private property rights shall be inextinguishable upon conquest, are subject to the overriding constraint of their compatibility with national policy during times of war. In the United States, such views have been fortified by judicial attitudes reluctant to use international law to restrain the Executive Branch especially with regard to war time decisions. It follows that the prohibition against extinguishing private property and contract rights upon conquest is more likely honored by conquering states when it is most compatible with their interests. For example, the prohibition is often enforced to secure the private property rights of nationals from a powerful belligerent state who are domiciled in a weaker state vulnerable to conquest. Yet, the private property rights of weaker enemy states are often subject to sequestration or confiscation. It is therefore not surprising that following the U.S.-led conquest of Iraq in the early 2003, most scholarly and press coverage has focused on the status of the foreign corporations' property in Iraq before the war. By contrast, there has been little attention given to the impact of the conquest on the private property and contracts of Iraqi citizens entered into before the war. In addition, the human rights of the Iraqi people for the most part took a back-seat during the conquest and only emerged in significance in the planning of returning sovereign control of the country back to Iraqis. This difference in the application of the rule against extinction of private property rights and contracts upon conquest is not a post-second World War phenomenon but rather a reflection of a more systemic disregard of rights of non-European peoples going back decades in the history of international law. Thus, as Native American ownership of land in early America history was held to have been extinguished upon conquest, and the various peace treaties between the United States and Spain treated Native American ownership of land as mere possession. Similar possession of land by White colonial settlers was held to constitute unimpeachable private property interests upon conquest. While under the classical international law rule, conquest does not extinguish pre-existing private property and contract rights, as a general matter, the municipal law of conquering states often requires the suspension of all contracts, except those of necessity at the beginning of hostilities between states. Thus the national security interests and the political exigencies in preventing free commerce between belligerent states over time modified and relaxed the rule against extinction of private property and contract rights upon conquest. For example, trading with enemy laws in the U.S. and the U.K. authorize the confiscation, and sequestration of the property and contracts of enemy nationals. The rationale for these actions has been to prevent enemy nationals from helping their home state in the war effort. By contrast to the rule prohibiting extinction of private property rights by conquest, the protection of private property and contract rights under military occupation has a much lower threshold. Though the occupying power is required to respect pre-existing private property rights, interferences are permissible where they accord with the requirements laid down under Articles 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 56 of the Hague Regulations of the 1907 Hague Convention. However, these provisions do not anticipate all possible scenarios where the private property of enemy state nationals may be interfered with by an occupying power. This arguably gives occupying powers wiggle room to interfere with private property rights in occupied territory much more broadly than conquest does. In addition, expansive readings of the duties of an occupying power under Article 43 of the Hague Regulations have in practice justified broad authority. It is also credible to claim that there are differences in some aspects of the treatment of the private property of the Fascists and Nazis, whom the Allied powers authorized to continue receiving certain payments such as pensions, as opposed to Japanese ultranationalists or Iraqi Baathists. Thus, while the Fascists and Nazis were defeated by conquest and their territory occupied, their private property rights were relatively better protected than those of the defeated Japanese after World War II and more recently those of the Baathists in Iraq after the U.S.-led conquest. In Part Two of the paper, I examine the rule against extinction of private property and contract rights, its rationales and why it has changed over time. In Part 3, I examine how the rule against extinction of private property rights and contracts upon conquest has been most attenuated in situations of non-western states conquered by western states, compared to the conquests among European states. This difference in the extinction of private property rights and contracts upon conquest is, I argue, a systemic expression of the hegemonic power of conquering states that goes back decades in the history of international law. To show that this hegemonic impulse to override private property rights of non-Europeans upon conquest in the history of international law, I discuss a 1905 House of Lords decision that explicitly found the rule against extinction was preempted by the overriding prerogatives of the Crown. I also discuss Indian ownership of territory in colonial America which upon conquest was treated as constituting mere possession, while similar possession of land by White colonial settlers was held to constitute unimpeachable private property interests. Part 4 is the most ambitious part of the paper. I explore whether the conquest of Iraq is exhibiting a parallel process of privileging and protecting foreign economic interests while under-protecting the property rights of Iraqis under the U.S.-led occupation as demonstrated in Part 3. To do so, first I outline the law governing treatment of private property under occupied territory before discussing the variety of claims that Iraqis in general and Iraqi women in particular may bring under the international legal regime to secure their private property rights adversely affected by conquest and occupation. I also discuss the international law governing treatment of Iraqi public assets under occupation and how the "De-Baathification" of Iraq compares and contrasts with similar occupation reconstruction programs in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Japan. In Part 4, I also examine the process of transforming the Iraqi economy into an open market economy and illustrate how the doctrine of military necessity, and the political and hegemonic objectives of transforming Iraq have justified expansive powers of the United States as an occupying power beyond those contemplated by Article 43 of the Hague Regulations. These powers include the authority to expropriate private property rights, and the privatization of formerly publicly owned wealth in an unprecedented transformation of the Iraq economy into a market economy. This Section ends with an examination of whether a future Iraqi government would be bound by the decisions of the U.S.-led occupation, and the alternative forums that Iraqis may turn to for remedies as a result of adverse consequences to their economic interests and their limitations that these alternatives pose.
The Juridical Review
Author: Alien Property. Hearings ... on H.R. 13496 ... Dec. 21-22, 1922 and Jan.3-15, 1923
Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign CommercePublisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 334
Book Description