Page images
PDF
EPUB

TWENTIETH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

THE NEW WILLARD HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D. C., APRIL 22-24, 1926 PROGRAM

Thursday, April 22, 1926, at 8.30 o'clock p. m.

Opening address by the President of the Society. HONORABLE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES. The right to confiscate alien property. MR. CLEMENT L. BOUVÉ, Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia.

Discussion from the floor.

Friday, April 23, 1926, at 10 o'clock a. m.

Round Table Conference on the Function and Scope of Codification in International Law. Presiding: JESSE S. REEVES, University of Michigan.

1. What is the function of codification in international law? Should it include legislation as well as restatement?

2. What is the most effective form of codification in international law? Treaties, uniform legislation, uniform declarations, or a code of persuasive influence?

3. What are appropriate subjects for codification in international law? Should fundamental premises or principles be included as well as substantive rules? Discussion opened by JAMES W. GARNER, Professor of Political Science in the University of Illinois, and JOSEPH W. BINGHAM, Professor of Law in the Stanford University Law School.

At 2 o'clock p. m.

Round Table Conference on the Codification of International Law in Respect to Nationality. Presiding: ELLERY C. STOWELL, The American University.

1. International problems in respect to nationality by birth.

(a) Is it possible to persuade all or most of the principal governments of the world to adopt a single, uniform basis for native citizenship; if so, should it be jus soli or jus sanguinis or some other rule? Would the adoption of such uniform basis for native citizenship require amendments of Article XIV of the Constitution of the United States and of the provisions in the Constitutions of Latin American countries concerning native citizenship?

(b) If it is deemed impracticable to adopt a single, uniform basis for native citizenship to prevent dual nationality from arising at birth, would it be possible to obtain the adoption of a uniform rule under which dual nationality would be terminated when the individuals concerned attain the age of majority or shortly thereafter? If so, what rules should be recommended?

2. International problems in respect to nationality by naturalization.

(a) Has the right of expatriation, as proclaimed in the Joint Resolution of Congress of July 27, 1868 (R. S. 1999-2001), been recognized to such an extent that it can now be regarded as a part of international law?

(b) Assuming that the right of expatriation does not prevent a country from punishing its former nationals who have obtained naturalization in another country for offenses committed before emigration, does it prevent punishment for the act of emigration itself where such emigration was prohibited by law?

(c) Should a person who has been naturalized during minority through the naturalization of a parent be allowed, upon attaining majority, to renounce such naturalization and, if so, under what conditions?

(d) Should protracted residence by a naturalized citizen in his country of origin or in a third country cause the loss of the nationality acquired through naturalization or raise a presumption thereof? In this relation, is the provision of the second paragraph of Section 2 of the Citizenship Act of March 2, 1907, satisfactory, so that it may be recommended for general adoption? If not, in what respects should it be changed? 3. International problems in respect to the nationality of married women.

(a) Should the nationality of a married woman as a rule follow that of her husband? If so, should she be allowed, by some affirmative act, to retain or obtain a nationality different from that of her husband?

(b) If the nationality of a married woman should follow that of her husband, in the absence of an election by her of a different nationality, should the nationality of the husband attach to his wife of alien origin immediately upon their marriage, irrespective of residence, or should it attach at the time when she begins to reside in her husband's country?

Discussion opened by RICHARD W. FLOURNOY, JR., Assistant to the Solicitor, Department of State, and HENRY B. HAZARD, Chief Naturalization Examiner, Bureau of Naturalization, Department of Labor.

At 4.30 o'clock p. m.

Reception by the President of the United States at the White House.

At 4.45 o'clock p. m.

Meeting of the Executive Council at the Society's office, 2 Jackson Place, N. W.

At 8.30 o'clock p. m.

Presiding: HONORABLE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES.

The Progress of Codification Under the Auspices of the Pan-American Union, by Dr. ANTONIO S. DE BUSTAMANTE, Professor of International Law at the University of Havana.

The Progress of Codification Under the Auspices of the League of Nations, by HONORABLE GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM, of the New York Bar.

Discussion from the floor.

Saturday, April 24, 1926, at 10 o'clock a. m.

Conclusion of the round table conference on the codification of international law in respect to nationality.

Business meeting of the Society:

Reports of Committees.

Election of Officers.

Adjournament of the Society.

Meeting of the Executive Council.

At 7.30 o'clock p. m.

Annual dinner at the New Willard Hotel.

Toastmaster: The HONORABLE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, President of the Society. Guests of Honor:

The HONORABLE CHARLES G. DAWES, Vice-President to the United States.

BARON AGO MALTZAN, German Ambassador to the United States.

DR. J. VARELA, Minister from Uruguay to the United States.

FREDERIC R. COUDERT, ESQ., of the New York Bar.

THE FOURTH YEAR OF THE PERMANENT COURT OF
INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE 1

BY MANLEY O. HUDSON

Bemis Professor of International Law, Harvard Law School

The year 1925 has been the busiest year in the history of the Permanent Court of International Justice to date. During some part of every month of the year, with the exception of September and December, the court has been in session. Its sixth (extraordinary) session began on January 12 and ended on March 26; its seventh (extraordinary) session began on April 14 and ended on May 16; its eighth (ordinary) session began on June 15 and ended on August 25; and its ninth (extraordinary) session began on October 22 and ended on November 21. During 210 days of the year, the judges were at work at The Hague, and without counting the days required for travelling for which indemnities are paid, they exceeded by ten the 200 days during which indemnities are paid to them to supplement their salaries. The result of the work of these four sessions was three judgments and three advisory opinions, each of which has contributed to the settlement of some difficult problem. In four years, the court has handed down six judgments and twelve advisory opinions. Taken together these judgments and opinions constitute a significant addition to our international jurisprudence, and if they cannot be said to have dealt with problems which might have led to war, they have nevertheless served useful ends in contributing to the removal of possible sources of friction.

THE EXCHANGE OF GREEK AND TURKISH POPULATIONS

The Greek and Turkish Governments signed a convention at Lausanne, on January 30, 1923, providing for a mutual exchange of populations, and the convention came into force on or soon after August 6, 1924. On

1 In continuation of the writer's series of articles on the work of the court published in this JOURNAL in previous years. See "The First Year of the Permanent Court of International Justice," Vol. 17, pp. 15–28; "The Second Year of the Permanent Court of International Justice," Vol. 18, pp. 1-37; "The Third Year of the Permanent Court of International Justice," Vol. 19, pp. 48-75. The three previous articles are included in a volume entitled The Permanent Court of International Justice and the Question of American Participation (Harvard University Press, 1925).

* The session was suspended, however, from June 19 to July 15, pending the submission of documents.

This volume compares very favorably with the early work of the Supreme Court of the United States, which in its first four years handed down but three opinions. See 2 Dallas, 402, 415, 419.

32 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 75; British Treaty Series, No. 16 (1923), Cmd. 1929, p. 174. The date of the convention's coming into force is slightly indefinite, for the

November 16, 1924, the mixed commission established according to the terms of this convention decided to request the Council of the League of Nations to ask the court for an advisory opinion on certain questions which had arisen in the course of its work. Previous consideration of these questions by the mixed commission had disclosed a difference of views among members of the commission, which had not only precluded the commission from taking any decision, but had rendered it difficult for the commission to meet. On October 22, 1924, the Greek Government, acting under Article 11 of the Covenant, had appealed to the Council of the League of Nations, protesting that Greeks not subject to the compulsory exchange provided for in the convention were being expelled from Constantinople by the Turkish authorities. On October 31, 1924, the Council had invited the mixed commission to meet, and had suggested the possibility of the submission of the existing differences to the court, either directly by the interested governments or indirectly through the Council's asking for an advisory opinion. It was in consequence of this suggestion that the mixed commission made its request of the Council.

The Lausanne Convention (Article 2) provides that Greek inhabitants of Constantinople shall not be subject to the compulsory exchange, and stipulates that "all Greeks who were already established before the 30th of October, 1918, within the areas under the Prefecture of the City of Constantinople, as defined by the law of 1912, shall be considered as Greek inhabitants of Constantinople." Similar precision is employed in defining "the Moslem inhabitants of Western Thrace." In applying the convention, the mixed commission found it necessary to fix the meaning of the word "established" as used in the convention, and the question was discussed extensively without any decision being reached. On December 13, 1924, with the concurrence of representatives of the Greek and Turkish Governments, the Council voted to ask the court for an advisory opinion on the following questions: 7

What meaning and scope should be attributed to the word "established" in Article 2 of the Convention of Lausanne of January 30th, 1923, regarding the exchange of Greek and Turkish populations, in regard to which discussions have arisen and arguments have been put forward which are contained in the documents communicated by the Mixed Commission? And what conditions must the persons who are described in Article 2 of the Convention of Lausanne under the name of "Greek inhabitants of Constantinople" fulfil in order that they may be

convention provides that "it shall come into force immediately after the ratification" of the treaty of peace signed at Lausanne, by the high contracting parties. The treaty of peace did not come into force until a procès-verbal of the deposit of ratifications was drawn up, and this may have taken place after August 6, 1924. See 28 League of Nations, Treaty Series, p. 11. League of Nations Official Journal, November, 1924, pp. 1663 ff.

• League of Nations Official Journal, November, 1924, p. 1672. "League of Nations Official Journal, February, 1925, p. 155.

considered as "established" under the terms of the Convention and exempt from compulsory exchange?

The Council's request was forwarded on December 18, 1924, and notice of it was given by the Registrar to all members of the League of Nations, to Ecuador and the United States as states mentioned in the Annex to the Covenant, to Turkey, to other states on the court's list, and to the mixed commission sitting at Constantinople. In view of the urgency of the question, the President of the court acted under Article 23 of the Statute and convoked an extraordinary session for January 12, 1925.

All of the judges were present on that date except Judges de Bustamante, Moore and Pessoa, who were replaced by Deputy-Judges Beichmann, Negulesco, and Yovanovitch. Both the Greek and Turkish Governments submitted memoranda of their views, and on January 16 the court heard oral arguments by M. Politis, on behalf of the Greek Government, and by Tewfik Rouchdy Bey, on behalf of the Turkish Government. The opinion was handed down on February 21, 1925.9

The court was of opinion that the questions submitted did not include any reference to the special position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. The word "established" was not to be defined in the abstract, but as used in Article 2 of the Lausanne Convention. This definition had given rise to an international dispute, involving a question of international law, and was not simply a domestic question between the administration and the inhabitants. The provision for exchange had excluded "Greek inhabitants of Constantinople" in order to "save that city from the loss which it would have suffered as a result of the exodus of a part of the population which constitutes one of the most important economic and commercial factors in the life of the city." The French text of the convention was controlling, and établissement embraces both residence and stability. It involves "an intention to continue the residence in a particular place for an extended period." While the conception is akin to that of domicile, the two are not identical.10 The convention does not expressly refer the determination of the meaning of établissement to national legislation, and it seems to connote a "situation of fact" rather than domicile in any legal sense determined by local legislation. The conclusion follows that the "convention is self-contained," and that the mixed commission, in order to decide what constitutes an established inhabitant, must rely on the natural meaning of the term. The court could not accept the contention of Tewfik Rouchdy Bey that the convention referred to national legislation, and it cited the Wimbledon Case 11 as a precedent for saying that this conclusion

11

'See Publications of the Court, Series C, No. 7-I.

'Publications of the Court, Series B, No. 10.

10 On the English law of domicile, see Westlake, Private International Law (6th ed. by Norman Bentwich, 1922), p. 344.

"Decided on August 17, 1923. See Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 1.

« PreviousContinue »