Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T02:43:19.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Doctrine of Self-Executing Treaties and GATT: A Notable German Judgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Stefan A. Riesenfeld
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , July 1971 , pp. 548 - 550
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1971

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 Tax Court of Hamburg, Judgment of Oct. 29, 1969 (IVa 353/66), 16 Aussenwirtschaftsdienst des Betriebs Beraters 93 (1970). For a translation, see p. 627 below.

2 American Institute for Imported Steel, Inc. v. County of Erie, 58 Misc. 2d 1059, 297 N.Y.S. 2d 602 (Sup. Ct, Erie County, 1968); digested in 64 A.J.I.L. 412 (1970).

3 Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. c. Superior Court, 208 C.A. 2d 803, 25 Cal. Rptr. 798 (1962). See the discussion by Jackson, World Trade and the Law of GATT 106- 110 (1970).

4 3“U.S. Treaties 615 (1952).

5 See Riesenfeld and Buxbaum, Note on “N.V. Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming Van Gend & Loos c. Administration Fiscale Néerlandaise: A Pioneering Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,” 58 A.J.I.L. 152 (1964).

6 Aerovias Interamer. de Panama v. Board of County Com'rs., 197 Fed. Supp. 230, at 247 (S.D. Fla., 1961); digested in 56 A.J.I.L. 214 (1962). The opinion was reversed on appeal in Board of County Com'rs v. Aerolineas Peruanas, S.A., 307 F.2d 802 (5th Cir., 1962) (digested in 57 A.J.I.L. 438 (1963)), apparently, however, on different grounds.

7 61 U.S. Stat., Part 2, 1181.

8 Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253 (1829), and United States v. Percheman, 32 U.S. 51 (1833).

9 Treaties and Conventions between the United States of America and Other Powers 785 (rev. ed., 1873).

10 The same article was also construed in United States v. Arredondo, 31 U.S. 691 (1832), a case in which Mr. Justice Baldwin, speaking for the majority of the Court, at least by way of dictum, anticipated the application subsequently given thereto.

11 27 U.S. 253, at 314.

12 32 U.S. 51, at 88.

13 See the discussion of the whole issue by Ungoed-Thomas J. in Cheney v. Conn (Inspector of Taxes), [1968] 1 W.L.R. 242 (Ch. Div” 1967).

14 See Bleckmann, Begriff und Kriterien der innerstaatlichen Anwendbarkeit völkerrechtlicher Verträge, Versuch einer allgemeinen Theorie des self-executing treaty auf rechtsvergleichender Grundlage (1970); Waelbroeck, Traités internationaux et juridictions internes dans les pays du Marché commun, at 161 (1969); Evans, “Self-Executing Treaties in the United States,” 30 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int. Law 178 (1930); Freund, “Einige Bemerkungen zu unmittelbar anwendbaren Vertragen,” 20 Österr. Ztschr. f. öffentl. Recht 105, at 120 (1970); Winkler, “Zur Frage der unmittelbaren Anwendbarkeit von Staatsverträgen,” 83 Juristenbl. 8 at 11, 12 (1961).