1 Cf. different investigations such as: Fiore, Nouveau droit international public (2d ed. 1885), Vol. 1, pp. 582, 616; Heffter, , Das europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart (8th ed. 1888), p. 138 Google Scholar; Tschernoff, , Le droit de protection exercé par un État à l’égard de ses nationaux résidant à l’étranger (1898), p. 262 Google Scholar; Moore, , Digest of International Law (1906), Vol. 6, p. 705 ff.Google Scholar; Nys, , Le droit international, 2d ed. (1912), Vol. 2, p. 266 Google Scholar; Ruegger, , “Privatrechtliche Begriffe im Völkerrecht,” 28 Niemeyers Zeitschrift für internationales Recht (1920), p. 435 Google Scholar; Isay, , “De la nationalité,” Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de droit international (1924), Vol. 4, p. 453 Google Scholar. H. v. Frisch, who, in Das Fremdenrecht (1910), treats the legal position of aliens in 363 pages, devotes five lines to “expropriation,” stating that “it is unnecessary to deal with this question in detail because here modern legislation does not discriminate between foreigners and nationals” (p. 327).

2 Dupuis, , “Règies générates du droit de la paix,” Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de droit international (1930), Vol. 2, p. 160 Google Scholar.

3 Cf. Borchard, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (1915), p. 617 ff.

4 Cf. the El Triunfo Company case and the Delagoa Bay arbitration, both quoted below.

5 Baty, Canons of International Law (1930), p. 13 ff.

6 Ibid.; cf. also Whiteman, Damages in International Law (1937), Vol. 2, p. 1364 ff.

7 Cf. the Delagoa Bay arbitration concerning a concession-contract (Sentence finale du Tribunal Arbitral du Delagoa, Bern, 1900; Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations (1898), Vol. 2, p. 1865 ff.); the Sicilian Sulphur Monopoly case, in its frequently neglected aspect concerning the later indemnification of the French concession-owners (British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 28, p. 1163 ff., Vol. 29, pp. 175 ff., 1225 ff., Vol. 30, p. 111 ff.; La Fontaine, Pasicrisie internationale (1902), p. 97 ff.); the El Triunfo Company case, likewise concerning a concession (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1902, p. 838 ff.); the Shufeldt claim, concerning a concession declared invalid ab initio by decree of legislature (State Department, Arbitration Series (1932), Vol. 3, pp. 69, 431,874); the Cheek case, concerning a contract which conferred the right to exploit certain forests (La Fontaine, op. cit., p. 579 ff.); a Greek-Bulgarian arbitration concerning “cutting”-contracts (Whiteman, op. cit, Vol. 2, p. 1459 ff.); the Norwegian Ships arbitration of the Hague Court of Arbitration, regarding the cancellation of ship-building contracts (J. B. Scott, Hague Court Reports (1932), Vol. 2, p. 39 ff.); the case of Dr. Ashmore, concerning fishing rights (La Fontaine, op. cit., p. 601 ff.); the case of Hopkins, concerning rights resulting from the possession of money orders (this Journal, Vol. 21 (1927), p. 160 ff.).

8 Cf. Brierly, “Règies générales du Droit de la Paix,” Recueil des Cours de l’Académie du droit international (1930), Vol. 4, p. 169 ff.; Verdross, “Les règies internationales concernant le traitement des étrangers,” ibid., 1931, Vol. 3, pp. 364, 373 ff.; Kelsen, “Théorie générale du Droit international public,” ibid., 1932, Vol. 4, p. 257; Dupuis, toe. cit., p. 160; Eagleton, Responsibility of States in International Law (1928), p. 165 ff.; Nielsen, International Law-Applied to Reclamations (1933), p. 34 ff.; Clarke, address in Proceedings of American Society of International Law, 1910, p. 155 ff. Doubts are expressed by Kaeckenbeeck, , “The Protection of Vested Rights in International Law,” 17 British Yearbook of International Law, 1936, p. 15 Google Scholar. Against the dominant opinion, see Baty, International Law (1909), p. 84 ff.

9 With respect to non-payment of purchase prices and loans, see Nielsen, op. cit., p. 34, and his dissenting opinion in the Cook case, ibid., p. 391; Pflug-Ntirnberg, Staatsbankrott und internationales Recht (1898), p. 54 (deals with this case as one of “denial of justice”). Cf. also Verdross, loc. cit., p. 374 ff., who, in the case of depreciation or nullification of public debts, deems “confiscation” to take place only when there has been “repudiation arbitraire”; recent developments seem to warrant such a conclusion.

The great controversies concerning “gold-clause” cases cannot be dealt with here. The dispute concerning the Mexican oil expropriation of 1938, as far as the United States is concerned, now centers largely upon the question of “what” has been expropriated.

10 Cf. Feller, Mexican Claims Commissions 1923–1934 (1935), p. 173 ff. Feller deems that a breach of contract on the part of state authorities is confiscatory where no means of local redress exists or in the case of “arbitrary” annulment of a contract without any resort to judicial procedure. Cf. also the rich diplomatic material in Moore’s Digest of International Law, Vol. 6, pp. 722–738, and Eagleton, op. cit., p. 165 ff.

11 Cf. the Italian Insurance Monopoly controversy, on the one hand, and the corresponding Uruguayan case on the other ( Audinet, , “Le monopole des assurances sur la vie en Italie et le droit des étrangers,” 20 Revue générale de droit international public (1913), p. 5 Google Scholar; Borchard, op. cit., p. 182; Fachiri, , “International Law and the Property of Aliens,” 10 British Yearbook of International Law, 1929, p. 40 Google Scholar; Rolin, , “Les droits des socéités étrangères,” 44 Revue de droit international et de législation comparée, 1912, p. 86)Google Scholar. In these cases the discussion has been complicated by the additional problem of the “generality” of the measure in question, a problem with which we will deal below. Cf. furthermore the Savage case (Moore’s International Arbitrations, Vol. 2, p. 1855 ff.), and the case, rather inconclusive in this respect, of the Sicilian Sulphur Monopoly, quoted above.

Measures of this kind are considered expropriation of foreign “property” by the following authors: Fischer Williams, “International Law and the Property of Aliens,” 9 British Yearbook of International Law, 1928, p. 25; Hoyer, , “La responsabilité internationale de l’État en matieres legislatives,” 4 Revue de Droit international, 1929, p. 591 Google Scholar; Scelle, , “À propos de l’établissement du monopole des assurances en Uruguay,” 30 Revue du droit public et de la science politique (1913), p. 668 Google Scholar; Audinet, loc. cit, p. 9 ff.; also resolution No. 4 of the New York Conference of the International Law Association (Report of 36th Conference held at New York, 1930, pp. 304,339 ff., 352,362). The following authors, on the other hand, do not consider such interests as property: Fachiri, loc. cit, p. 39 ff.; Borchard, op. cit, p. 125 ff. (referring also to earlier monopoly cases); Jèze, , “De la responsabilité pécuniaire de l’État italien envers les nationaux et les étrangers à raison de l’établissement d’un monopole public des assurances sur la vie,” 29 Revue du droit public et de la science politique (1912), p. 450 Google Scholar; also, ibid., 1913, p. 58 ff.; Baty, International Law, p. 84 ff.; Schiicking, , “Der Schutz der wohlerworbenen Rechte im Völkerrecht,” Festgabe für Max Huber (1934), p. 204 ffGoogle Scholar. Cavaglieri, , in “La notion des droits acquis et son application en droit international public,” 38 Revue générale de droit international public (1931), p. 267 ff.Google Scholar, is of the opinion that international law has not yet developed a rule in this respect at all.

The same problem arises in the municipal law of all those countries which in their constitutions provide against confiscation of private property.

12 Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A/B, No. 63, in particular p. 88. Cf. also the opinion of Sir Cecil Hurst, ibid., p. 121 ff., where a very illuminating distinction is drawn between rights deriving from a legal monopoly interfering with existing contracts, and mere business interests.

13 The question as to what constitutes state responsibility for denial of justice cannot be dealt with here. Cf. the very elaborate discussion by Freeman, International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice (1938).

14 Illegal acts (according to the yardstick of the municipal law in question) of state officials or authorities do not, however, constitute expropriation whenever they can be sued in the courts of the country. An improper handling of such a suit may then lead to responsibility of the state for denial of justice.

15 Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 6, p. 262 ff.; British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 39, p. 410 ff.

16 Woolsey, “The Expropriation of Oil Properties by Mexico,” this Journal, Vol. 32 (1938), p. 523, however, seems to consider this distinction as to procedure important; according to this author, any consideration of the motives of expropriation is superfluous in the case of “arbitrary” procedure.

17 Fenwick, International Law (2d ed. 1934), p. 204 ff.; Scelle, Précis de Droit des gens (1934), Vol. 2, p. 114; Hoyer, he. cit., p. 580 ff.; Audinet, he. cit., p. 19; Kaeckenbeeck, , “La protection internationale des droits acquis,” Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit international (1937), Vol. 1, p. 356 Google Scholar. The De Sabla case, decided by the United States-Panama Claims Commission, offers a good illustration of general legislation amounting, together with ensuing executive acts, to expropriation of foreign property without compensation (Hunt, “United States-Panama General Claims Commission,” this Journal, Vol. 28 (1934), p. 63 ff.). Cf. also the Shufeldt claim (Arbitration Series, op. cit.), where a concession was declared invalid by decree of the legislature.

18 International Law Association, Report of 34th Conference held at Vienna 1926, pp. 249, 275 (addition to Resolution No. 5). Here, too, the De Sabla case, referred to above, is illuminating. Claimant had been deprived of certain tracts of her land by the enactment of laws authorizing the government to make leases to private individuals on the basis of applications alleging that the lands were national property. The laws, in their actual application, made it extremely difficult for the owners to enter in due time the required “oppositions” showing their right to the lands, so that the claimant, without negligence on her part, had lost part of her property. The whole procedure, in the opinion of the Claims Commission, amounted to expropriation, although it was neither styled, nor intended to be, expropriation.

19 Coudert, “The Mexican Situation and Protection of American Property Abroad,” 24 American Bar Association Journal (1938), p. 818; Verdross, loc. cit., p. 359 ff.

20 E.g., Fachiri, “Expropriation and International Law,” 6 British Yearbook of International Law, 1925, p. 160; Fischer Williams, loc. cit., p. 25; Brierly, loc. cit., p. 171; Bellot, , “The Protection of Private Property,” 4 Revue de droit international, de sciences diplomatiques et politiques (1926), p. 15 Google Scholar; Marburg, , “Enteignung und Völkerrecht,” 3 Wörterbuch des Völkerrechts und der Diplomatie (1926), p. 819 ff.Google Scholar; Freeman, op. cit., p. 517; Gidel, “L’Arrêt no. 7 de la Cour permanente de Justice internationale,” 1 Revue de Droit international (1927), p. 119; Kunz, , “Two causes célèbres,” 5 Hungarian Quarterly (1939), p. 43 Google Scholar, and “The Mexican Expropriations,” New York University School of Law, Contemporary Law Pamphlets, Series 5, No. 1, 1940, p. 4. Cf. also the 34th Report of the International Law Association, p. 234.

21 Brierly, loc. cit., p. 171; Fischer Williams, loc. cit., p. 29; Steinbach, Untersuchungen zum internationalen Fremdenrecht (1931), pp. 82 ff., 134; Bullington, “Problems of International Law in the Mexican Constitution of 1917,” this Journal, Vol. 21 (1927), p. 702 and note 86; De Lapradelle, as quoted by Gidel, loc. cit, p. 124.

22 Scelle, “À propos de l’établissement du monopole des assurances en Uruguay,” loc. cit., pp. 637 ff., 658 ff.; Jeze, loc. cit., p. 444 ff.; Bullington, loc. cit., p. 703 ff.; Mallet-Prevost, “International Law and Its Application to the Oil Industry Abroad,” address delivered before the American Bar Association at Memphis, Tenn., Oct. 22, 1929, p. 6. These authors base their theory also on the argument of “police power” or the nature of the action as one of “social reform.” Following a report submitted by Witenberg, the International Law Association apparently deemed each case of abolition or suppression of a right to be made in exercise of the state’s police power and, therefore, to be exempt from the ordinary consequences of expropriation (cf. 36th Report, op. cit., pp. 332, 347, 351, 362), but obviously this equation is not always justified.

23 Cf. the rule of nineteenth century Prussian law according to which each Enteignung must be an Uebereignung; later German practice abandoned this rule. For a French civil law theory of enrichment see Barthélemy, in 24 Revue de droit public et de la science politique (1907), p. 98.

24 Fischer Williams, loc. cit., p. 25; Hoyer, loc. cit., p. 591 ff.

25 Thus in cases of abolition of slavery or of prohibition legislation.

26 Thus, e.g., payment of compensation in the Sicilian Sulphur Monopoly case to the French owners of the abolished concession (British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 29, p. 1225).

27 Fachiri, “Expropriation and International Law,” loc. cit., p. 170; “International Law and the Property of Aliens,” loc. cit., p. 53 ff. Cf. also resolution of the New York Conference of the International Law Association (36th Report, op. cit., pp. 347, 361 ff.), as against the report submitted by Witenberg, who held the case of taxation to be an exception from the rule of protection of private property (ibid., pp. 322 ff., 350).

28 This difficulty is emphasized by Baty, International Law, p. 85; Fischer Williams, loc. cit., p. 24 ff.; Bullington, loc. cit., p. 699 ff.

29 Cases: J. Parson’s case, American and British Claims Arbitration, Report of F. K. Nielsen (1926), p. 587; Chorzow Factory case, Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A, No. 7, p. 22 (referring to “judicial liquidation and similar measures”). Cf., however, the case mentioned by Foulke, International Law (1920), Vol. 2, p. 24, where damages for losses suffered by fumigation for sanitary purposes were paid.

Doctrine: Kaeckenbeeck, “The Protection of Vested Rights in International Law,” loc. cit, p. 16, and “La protection Internationale des droits acquis,” loc. cit., p. 404 ff. (with reference to the jurisdiction of the Upper Silesia Arbitral Tribunal, instituted by the Geneva Convention of May 15, 1922); Foulke, op. cit., p. 24; Brierly, loc. cit, p. 171; Verdross, loc. cit., p. 372; Lauterpacht, “Règies générales du Droit de la paix,” Recueil des Cours de l’Academie de Droit international (1937), Vol. 4, p. 346; Fachiri, “International Law and the Property of Aliens,” loc. cit, p. 53; Freeman, op. cit, p. 521; Report by Witenberg, 36th Report of International Law Association, p. 333; Borchard and Jessup in Proceedings of American Society of International Law, 1927, pp. 24 ff., 39. Mallet-Prevost (op. cit., p. 6), Brierly (loc. cit, p. 171), and Kunz (“The Mexican Expropriations,” loc. cit, p. 24) affirm that there can never be any justification for the exercise of police power where property is transferred to the state or another person but only if it is abolished. This equation of expropriation and enrichment leads to confusion: Why should not public necessity require the transfer of property to public authorities, under certain circumstances, e.g., for military reasons?

30 As Sack, , “Les reclamations diplomatiques contre les Soviets,” 66 Revue de droit international et de législation compareé (1939), p. 8 ff.Google Scholar, seems to affirm. Kunz, “Two causes célèbres,” loc. cit., pp. 50, 57, restricts “legal expropriation” to reasons of public utility but leaves it to the discretion of the expropriating state to decide what constitutes public utility; cf. also his “Mexican Expropriations,” loc. cit, p. 55.

31 Bourquin, , “Régies générates du Droit de la paix,” Recueil des Cows de l’Académie de Droit international (1931), Vol. 1, p. 166 Google Scholar; Stowell, International Law (1931), p. 172; Cutler, “The Treatment of Foreigners,” this Journal, Vol. 27 (1933), p. 239 ff.; Fischer Williams, loc. cit, p. 25. According to a resolution adopted by the International Law Association (36th Report, p. 362, sub. 2a) “International law prohibits a state from distorting, as against foreigners, the notion of public interest or public utility”; it is not, however, explained what the legal consequences of such a “distortion” would be.

32 Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A, No. 17, pp. 46, 47.

33 Nielsen’s Report, op. cit, p. 76. Cf. also the award by R. Fazy, in the case of David Goldenberg, Rumania v. German Reich, Sept. 27,1928, 3 Revue de Droit international (1929), p. 559, and the decision in the Delagoa Bay case, op. cit., pp. 164, 166. The decision in the case of Walter Fletcher Smith (Whiteman, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 1408 ff.) likewise distinguishes between legal and illegal expropriation; the latter is said to lead to an obligation to restore the property taken (p. 1411).

34 Cf. statement by Secretary Hull of March 29, 1938, and Mexican reply of March 31, 1938 (Department of State Press Releases, Vol. 18, p. 435 ff.), and even, in principle, the British note of April 8, 1938 (Coudert, loc. cit., p. 818 ff.). In a more recent exchange of notes, however, Mexico, with reference to the United States’ contention that “the right of expropriation is coupled with and conditioned on the obligation to make effective, prompt, and adequate compensation,” has refused to recognize an international legal obligation to pay immediate compensation (cf. notes of April 3, 1940, and May 1, 1940, Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 2,1940, pp. 380, 466). Cf. also Hoyer, loc. cit., p. 596, with reference to the French and British standpoint vis-à-vis the Bolshevist expropriations.

35 Kaeckenbeeck, “Protection of Vested Rights in International Law,” loc. cit., p. 15 ff. (not “compensation for a tort, in order to redeem an illegal act, but an equitable alleviation of the economic sacrifices demanded”); Sack, loc. cit., p. 12 (“obligation juridique de nature quasi-contractuelle”); Marburg, loc. cit., p. 20; Woolsey, loc. cit, p. 524 ff.; Eagleton, op. cit, p. 165 ff.

36 Cf. Observations générales of the British Government in the Expropriated Religious Properties quoted by Fachiri, “Expropriation and International Law,” loc. cit, p. 168; standpoint of France vis-à-vis the Bolshevist expropriations (Hoyer, loc. cit, p. 596, also Fauchille, Traité de Droit international public (8th ed. (1922), Vol. 1, Pt. 1, p. 954 ff.) and, apparently, Kunz, “The Mexican Expropriations,” loc. cit., pp. 52–55.

37 Cf. Fauchille, op. cit, p. 930; Ruegger, loc. cit, p. 459 ff.; Audinet, loc. cit, p. 11 ff.

38 Cf. the cases of George Finley and Jonas King, as quoted above, the Melczer Mining Company case between the United States and Mexico (Nielsen, op. cit, p. 369), the cases reported in La Fontaine, op. cit., pp. 225 ff., 240 ff., statements made during the Mexican oil dispute as quoted above. A treaty which concerned the expropriation of British-owned property during the French revolution already provided compensation for, not restitution of, landed property (Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty (1875), Vol. 1, p. 399 ff.). And the following authors: Verdross, , “Zur Konfiskation ausländischen Privateigentums nach Friedens-völkerrecht,” 4 Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht (1925), p. 324 ffGoogle Scholar. (referring also to treaties as evidence of the existence of a customary rule); Hoyer, he. cit., p. 597; Bellot, loc. cit, p. 15; de Visscher, , “La responsabilité des États,” 2 Bibliotheca Visseriana (1924), p. 95 Google Scholar; Bourquin, loc. cit., p. 166; Scelle, Précis de Droit des gens, Vol. 2, p. 113; Dupuis, loc. cit., p. 161 ff.; Bullington, loc. cit, p. 695; Kunz, “Two causes celebres,” loc. cit., p. 50 ff. (especially p. 57).

39 Thus Hatschek (Vblkerrecht als System rechtlich bedeutsamer Staatsakte, 1923, p. 397) limits the obligation to indemnify to the case where the foreigner lives outside the territory of the expropriating state; Steinbach (op. cit, p. 132 ff.) to the case where the expropriation is for purely fiscal reasons, not for public utility. Neither submits any evidence for these allegations. Vattel (Law of Nations, Book 2, Chap. 8) suggested a distinction between landed property, to be regulated freely according to the lex rei situs, and other property which was to be respected because constituting part of the wealth of the foreigner’s nation.

40 Chorzow case, op. cit, Series A, No. 17, p. 46; Norwegian Ships arbitration, loc. cit, p. 74; case of David Goldenberg, loc. cit., p. 559.

41 E.g., Savage case (Moore, International Arbitrations, Vol. 2, p. 1855 ff.); Norwegian Ships arbitration, loc. cit, p. 75; Chorzow Factory case, loc. cit, p. 47. In the compromise concerning Mexican agrarian expropriations the United States agreed to deferred payments without asking for interest, but stated that this was not to constitute a precedent. On the other hand, cf. the award in the case of David Goldenberg (he. cit., p. 559): “délai raisonnable.” The doctrine usually emphasizes “immediate” payment: Hyde, “Compensation for Expropriation,” this Journal, Vol. 33 (1939), p. 110; Kunz, “Two causes célèbres,” loc. cit, p. 50, and “The Mexican Expropriations,” loc. cit, p. 57 ff.; International Law Association, 36th Report, p. 362, rule 2b; see, however, also pp. 337 ff., 586 ff.

42 Permanent Court of International Justice, loc. cit., p. 47; also Bourquin, loc. cit., p. 167 (“dommage direct cause par l’expropriation”).

43 Norwegian Ships arbitration, loc. cit., p. 73; Delagoa Bay case, op. cit., p. 166; Shufeldt claim, op. cit., p. 877 ff.

44 In the case of Dr. Ashmore (La Fontaine, op. cit, p. 601 ff.) the value of certain fishing rights was fixed by a capitalization of the lost annual returns. The standard for the final compromise in the Mexican agrarian case was the “just value” and “fair return” of the properties.

45 Dunn, Diplomatic Protection of Americans in Mexico (1933), p. 380. Some authors affirm that in case a state is apparently not in a position to pay immediate and full compensation, it is obliged to restore the property: Hyde, loc. cit., p. 112; Culbertson, “Foreign Interests in Mexico,” 17 International Affairs (1938), p. 777. Actual practice, so far, does not confirm the validity of a rule which would make the right of eminent domain dependent upon the financial situation of the expropriating state.

46 For a sociological inquiry into these questions, cf. my article “Expropriation of Alien Property—An Inquiry into the Sociology of International Law,” 8 Social Research (1941), p. 63 ff.

47 Though such action does in fact sometimes merge with nationalistic motives, especially when a high percentage of those whose property is concerned are foreigners.

48 Cf. the cases mentioned by Borchard, op. cit, p. 126 ff., and Barthelemy, loc. cit., p. 65 ff.

49 An exceptional case concerning French revolutionary land expropriations has been mentioned above. The expropriation legislation of the short-lived Rome Republic of 1848 expressly exempted foreign Church property (British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 62, p. 467). The application of the French revolutionary expropriation measures to Alsatian possessions of German princes and nobles, however, was one of the reasons for the outbreak of the war of the First Coalition against France.

50 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 28, p. 1166 ff., especially Sicilian notes of July 31,1838 (p. 1202), Sept. 17,1838 (p. 1215), and Palmerston’s reply of Oct. 12,1838 (p. 1218 ff.)

51 Cf. the cases mentioned by Borchard, op. cit., p. 126 ff., and Audinet, loc. cit., p. 21 ff.

52 Cf. the quotations in De Lapradelle-Niboyet, Répertoire de Droit international, Vol. 8 (1930), under “ Théorie générale de la condition de l’étranger,” by S. Basdevant, p. 51.

53 Cf. Dunn, op. cit, p. 371 ff. The main issues, here, were the adequacy of compensation and whether certain limitations in the use and right of property amounted to expropriation.

54 Cf. in particular, Mexican notes of Aug. 3 and Sept. 2, 1938, and American note of Aug. 22, 1938, this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 32 (1938), p. 181 ff.

55 Cf. exchange of notes of Nov. 9 and 12,1938, ibid., and Kunz, “The Mexican Expropriations,” loc. cit, p. 23 ff. The Mexican oil expropriation affected only foreign-owned property; as a discriminatory measure it should not, therefore, be confounded with measures of general reform applying to foreigners and nationals alike.

56 Cf. decision of the Hungarian-Rumanian Mixed Arbitral Tribunal of Jan. 10, 1927 (translated in Agrarian Reform in Rumania and the Case of the Hungarian Optants before the League of Nations, 1927, p. 2 ff.), favorable to Hungary’s standpoint and the principle of the “standard of civilization.”

57 Cf. Austen Chamberlain’s report submitted to the League Council, favorable to Rumania and the principle of “equality of treatment” (ibid., p. 29 ff.).

58 Cf. quotations in De Lapradelle-Niboyet, op. cit., p. 55 ff.

59 Cf. Recueil des decisions des Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes, Vol. 10 (1930), p. 176 ff. (especially preamble of agreement No. 2, April 28, 1930).

60 Fauchille, op. cit.; Sack, loc. cit.

61 Permanent Court of International Justice, loc. cit, Series A, No. 7, p. 33; Series A/B, No. 61, p. 243.

62 The same conclusion is possibly warranted by the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Expropriated Religious Properties case (Scott, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 1 ff.).

63 This Journal, Vol. 21 (1927), p. 160 ff.

64 8 British Yearbook of International Law, 1927, p. 156 ff. (especially pp. 168, 169).

65 Scott, op. cit, Vol. 1, p. 284 ff.

66 Cavaglieri, loc. cit, p. 293 ff.; Fischer Williams, loc. cit, p. 15 ff.; Baty, Canons of International Law, p. 131 ff. (excepting the case of “savage barbarity”); Fenwick, op. cit, p. 204 ff.; Marburg, loc. cit., p. 821 ff.; Isay, loc. cit, p. 453; Fiore, op. cit., pp. 582, 616; Pinheiro-Ferrara, in Martens, Précis du Droit des gens moderne de l’Europe (2d ed. 1864), Vol. 1, p. 300; Hershey, Essentials of International Public Law and Organization (2d ed. 1927), p. 254; Brierly, loc. cit, p. 171, and Law of Nations (2d ed. 1936), p. 178; Dunn, “International Law and Private Property Rights,” 28 Columbia Law Review (1928), p. 175 ff. (proposes a more definite rule, p. 180, which, however, would also presuppose an objective instance to define in every concrete case whether there has been “bona fide reform,” “genuinely aimed to benefit the nation,” etc.); Rolin, , “Lea réformes agraires en Roumanie et la compétence des Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes,” 54 Revue de Droit international et de legislation comparée (1927), pp. 442, 467 Google Scholar; Duguit, “Le différend roumano-hongrois et le Conseil de la Sodété des Nations,” ibid., p. 471 ff.; Alvarez, , “La réforme agraire,” 10 Europe Nouvelle (1927), p. 1452 ff.Google Scholar; Berthélemy, in Agrarian Reform in Rumania, p. 65 ff.; Sibert, ibid., p. 248 ff.; Strupp, ibid., p. 300, and “Das völkerrechtliche Delikt,” Handbuch des Völkerrechts (1920), Vol. 3, Pt. 4, pp. 118, 119; Jèze, loc. dt., p. 445; Robles, Garcia, “La question des matières premières en Mexique et le Droit des gens,” 23 Revue de Droit international (1939), p. 529 ffGoogle Scholar.

Cf. also Art. 9 of the Convention on Rights and Duties of States, Montevideo, 1933, this Journal, Vol. 28 (1934), Supplement, p. 76, and Borchard, “The Committee of Experts at the Lima Conference,” ibid., Vol. 33 (1939), p. 272 ff., on the question of whether there is at least a regional inter-American law containing the rule of equal treatment. Marburg, loc. cit., p. 824 ff., affirms the existence of a regional rule of the minimum standard in the relations between the United States and Mexico.

67 Fachiri, “Expropriation and International Law,” loc. cit., p. 160 ff.; Kaeckenbeeck, “La protection internationale des droits acquis,” loc. cit., p. 360 ff., and “The Protection of Vested Rights in International Law,” loc. cit., p. 16 (with some qualifications); Hoyer, loc. cit, pp. 585 ff., 599 ff.; Bellot, loc. cit., p. 15; Nielsen, op. cit., pp. 39, 40; Anderson, “Basis of the law against confiscating foreign-owned property,” this Journal, Vol. 21 (1927), p. 525 ff.; Stowell, op. cit, pp. 171, 178 ff., and Intervention in International Law (1921), pp. 159, 161 (rather vague); Anzilotti, , “La responsabilité internationale des États à raison des dommages soufferts par des érangers,” 13 Revue générate de Droit international public (1906), pp. 19, 20 Google Scholar, and Cours de Droit international public (1929), Vol. 1, p. 473; Vagts, Mexico, Europa und Amerika, Unter besonderer Berüsichtigung der Petroleumpolitik (1928), p. 296 ff.; Hyde, “Confiscatory Expropriation,” this Journal, Vol. 32 (1938), p. 761, and International Law (1922), Vol. 1, p. 468 ff.; Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law (3rd ed. 1882), Vol. 2, pp. 6, 14; Fauchille, op. cit, p. 934; Hall, International Law (8th ed. 1924), p. 332; Eagleton, op. cit, pp. 83 ff., 86; Whiteman, op. cit, p. 21 ff.; Dupuis, loc. cit, pp. 150,152,160 ff.; Bullington, loc. cit, p. 702 (with many doubts); Coudert, loc. cit., p. 819; Schiicking, loc. cit, p. 203 ff.; Freeman, op. cit, pp. 515 ff., 527 ff.; Mallet-Prevost, op. cit., pp. 2, 3; Verdross, “Les règles internationales concernant le traitement des étrangers,” loc. cit, pp. 335 ff., 359 ff.; Borchard, “The Minimum Standard of the Treatment of Aliens,” 38 Michigan Law Review (1939/40), p. 445 ff., especially p. 458 ff., and, more hesitant, in Proceedings of American Society of International Law, 1939, p. 62 ff.; Kunz, “Two causes celebres,” loc. cit., p. 54, and “The Mexican Expropriations,” loc. cit, p. 31 ff.; Deak, Hungarian-Rumanian Land Dispute (1928), p. 116 ff.; Gibson, Aliens and the Law (1940), p. 3 ff.

68 Gidel, loc. cit, p. 113; Duguit, loc. cit, p. 469.

69 Strupp, he. cit., p. 118 ff.; Scelle, Précis de Droit des gens, Vol. 2, p. 128 (deals with this problem in a rather contradictory manner, cf., on the one hand, op. cit., p. 114, and, on the other hand, “L’Arrêt de 10 Janvier 1927 du Tribunal Arbitral Mixte roumano-hongrois dans les affaires dites agraires et le droit international,” 34 Revue générale de droit international public (1927), pp. 460, 464, where he seems to accept the principle of the international standard.)

70 Kelsen, loc. cit, p. 249 ff.

71 Strupp, loc. cit; de Louter, Droit international public positif (1920), Vol. 1, pp. 278 ff., 296; Triepel, Völkerrecht und Landesrecht (1899), p. 343.

72 Schwarzenberger, “The Rule of Law and the Disintegration of International Society,” this journal, Vol. 33 (1939), p. 64.

73 Hold-Ferneck, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts (1932), Vol. 2, p. 30; cf. also Cutler, loc. cit, p. 239 ff.; Kelsen, loc. cit, p. 253; Cavaglieri, loc. cit, pp. 270, 295.

74 Cf. the different replies to the questionnaire, Question III, No, 3 of the Bases of Discussion, this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 24 (1930), p. 49 ff. The Committee on State Responsibility, set up by the conference, was unable to complete its studies and to submit a report. The League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Codification of International Law had favored equality of treatment (this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 20 (1926), p. 182).

75 Cf. Project No. 16 of the American Institute of International Law, submitted to the International Commission of Jurists at Rio de Janeiro, April, 1927, favoring national treatment (this Journal, Special Supplement, Vol. 23 (1929), p. 232); International Law Association, Vienna Conference, 1926, report and resolutions in favor of the international standard (34th Report, op. cit, pp. 227 ff., 248 ff.); International Law Association, New York Conference, 1930, no unanimity (36th Report, op. cit., p. 351; the report drafted by Witenberg was in favor of an obligation to pay deferred compensation in case of agrarian reforms, ibid., p. 338 ff.); Institut de Droit international, Lausanne Conference, 1927, compromise formula which left the question open (“at least” equal treatment, cf. Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit international, 1927, Vol. 3, p. 118); Harvard Research in International Law, this Journal, Special Supplement, Vol. 23 (1929), p. 161, no definite answer.

76 “Règies générales du Droit de la paix,” loc. cit., p. 344 ff., especially p. 347; Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law (5th ed. 1937), Vol. 1, p. 284 ff. Concerning the juridico-political aspect of the question and proposals for a future regulation, cf. Dunn, “International Law and Private Property Rights,” loc. cit, passim, and my article “Expropriation of Alien Property,” loc. cit., passim.