Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T06:27:52.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Law by Analogy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Josef L. Kunz
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
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 45 , Issue 2 , April 1951 , pp. 329 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1951

References

1 See on this problem: Blackstone, Commentaries upon the Laws of England, Bk. IV, Ch. 5; J. B. Moore, A Digest of International Law (Washington, 1906), Vol. I, pp. 9-11; Picciotto, The Relation of International Law to the Laws of England and of the United States (1915); H. Lauterpacht,“Is International Law a Part of the Law of England?”(Grotius Society Transactions, Vol. 25, pp. 51-88); E. D. Dickinson in this JOURNAL, Vol. 26 (1932), pp. 239-260; Walz,Völkerrecht und staatliches Recht(1933); Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I (7th ed., London, 1948), pp. 37-44.

2 See the Earl of Mansfield in Triquet v. Bath (1764), 3 Barrows 1478; Respublica v. DeLongchamps (1784), 1 Dallas 111; Marshall, C. J., in The Nereide(1815), 9 Cranch 388; Lord Campbell, C. J., in Magdalena Steam Navigation Co. v. Martin (1859), 2 Ellis and Ellis 94; Turner, L. J., in Emperor of Austria v. Day and Kossuth (1861), Great Britain, High Court of Chancery, 2 Gilfard 621; Lord Alverstone, C. J., in West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. v. The King, [1905] 2 K. B. 391.

3 Weimar Constitution, 1919, Art. 4; Austrian Constitutions, 1920, Art. 9, 1934,Art. 9; Spanish Constitution, 1931, Art. 9. See also the present so-called Bonn Constitution(Grundgesetz).

4 See Marshall, C. J., in Foster and Elam v. Neilson (1829), 2 Peters 253; Robertson v. General Electric Co. (1929), 32 F. (2d) 495.

5 See Hooper v. U. S. (1887), 22 Ct. CI. 408.

6 That is why the decision in Sei Fujii v. State of California (Calif. Dist. Ct. App. 2nd Dist. April 24, 1950) is doubly attackable: The corresponding clauses of the United Nations Charter are not self-executory, nor do they constitute legally binding norms. See Manley O. Hudson in this JOURNAL, Vol. 44 (1950), pp. 542-548.

7 Paul Guggenheim, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts (Basel, 1948), Vol. I, pp. 34, 35.

8 In Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 44.

9 H. Kelsen, “La transformation du droit international en droit interne,” Revue Générale de Droit International Public, 1936, pp. 5 ff

10 This distinction is now brought out with the utmost clarity by A. Verdross,Völkerrecht (Vienna, 1950), pp. 65-66.

11 See Charles K. Burdick’s paper “Decisions of National Tribunals” and discussion in Proceedings of the 5th Conference of Teachers of International Law and Related Subjects, Washington, 1933, pp. 162-166, 172 ff. See also the Digests of International Law by Moore and Hackworth, the treatise by Oppenheim-Lauterpacht. On the subject of international law in national courts, see in general: D. Anzilotti, Il diritto internazionale nei giudizi interni(1905); James Brown Scott, Judicial Settlement of Controversies between States of the American Union (1918); H. A. Smith, The American Supreme Court as an International Tribunal (1921); Ruth D. Masters, International Law in National Courts (1932). It seems also that Prof. Willard B. Cowles, in his 1950 lectures on the application of international law within federal states at the Hague Academy of International Law, taught that international law as such is applicable in the relations between non-sovereign parts of federal states, and even to provinces and municipalities.

12 On Swiss cases see Guggenheim, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 34, note 33.

13 See Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U. S. 1; Michigan v. Wisconsin (1926), 270 U. S. 295; Wisconsin v. Michigan (1935), 295 U. S. 455; decision of the German Staatsgerichtshof of July, 1928, in the controversy between Lübeck and MecklenburgSchwerin (Annual Digest 1927-28, case No. 88).

14 See Kansas v. Colorado (1907), 206 U. S. 46 (Arkansas River); Wyoming v. Colorado (1922), 259 U. S. 419, and (1936), 298 U. S. 573 (Laramie Eiver); Connecticut v. Massachusetts (1931), 282 U. S. 660 (Ware and Swift Rivers); New Jersey v. New York (1931), 283 U. S. 336 (Delaware River); Washington v. Oregon (1936), 297 U. S. 517 (Walla Walla River); Wisconsin v. Illinois (1929), 278 U. S. 367, (1930), 281 U. S. 179, (1933), 289 U. S. 395 (diversion of the waters of Lake Michigan); decision of the German Staatsgerichtshof between Baden and Württemberg of June 19, 1927 (use of the Danube).

15 Missouri v. Illinois (1906), 200 U. S. 496; New Jersey v. City of New York (1931),283 U. S. 473.

16 Iowa v. Illinois (1893), 147 U. S. 1; Louisiana v. Mississippi (1906), 202 U. S. 1; Indiana v. Kentucky (1890), 136 U. S. 479; Nebraska v. Iowa (1892), 143 U. S. 359; Washington v. Oregon (1908), 211 U. S. 127, and (1909), 214 U. S. 205; Arkansas v. Tennessee (1918), 246 U. S. 158; Arkansas v. Mississippi (1919), 250 U. S. 39; Oklahoma v. Texas (1920), 252 U. S. 372, and (1923), 260 U. S. 606; Minnesota v. Wisconsin (1920), 252 U. S. 273; Georgia v. South Carolina (1922), 257 U. S. 516; New Mexico v. Texas (1927), 275 U. S. 279; Vermont v. New Hampshire (1933), 289 U. S. 593; New Jersey v. Delaware (1934), 291 U. S. 361.

17 See Nebraska v. Iowa (1892), 143 U. S. 359; Louisiana v. Mississippi (1931), 282 U. S. 458; Jraolo v. Province of Buenos Aires, Supreme Court of Argentina (Annual Digest 1919-1922, case No. 62).

18 See Central Railroad Co. v. Jersey City (1908), 209 U. S. 473.

19 See Rhode Island v. Massachusetts (1838), 12 Peters 657; Virginia v. Tennessee(1893), 148 U. S. 503; Louisiana v. Mississippi (1906), 202 U. S. 1, and (1931), 282 U. S. 458; Maryland v. West Virginia (1910), 217 U. S. 1; Arkansas v. Tennessee (1918), 246 U. S. 158; Arkansas v. Mississippi (1919), 250 U. S. 39; Michigan v. Wisconsin (1926),270 U. S. 295.

20 Virginia v. West Virginia (1911), 220 U. S. 1; (1918), 246 U. S. 568.

21 In the S.S. Lotus Case, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 10, Sept. 7, 1927, pp. 16, 18.

22 Josef L. Kunz, Die Staatenverbindungen(Stuttgart, 1929).

23 They are not members of the international community; that is why the federal state alone is internationally responsible for them; that is why they enjoy no immunity in foreign courts (State of Ceara (a member State of Brazil) v. Dorr, France, Cour de Cassation, 1932, Recueil Dalloz, 1933, p . 196). The U. S. Supreme Court decision in Monaco v. Mississippi (1934), 292 U. S. 573, is based on American constitutional, not on international law.

24 See now Byelorussia and the Ukraine. Treaties can, of course, confer a limited international personality even on a territorial entity which is not a state and is not independent and self-governing, such as the proposed Free Territory of Trieste (See Jos. L. Kunz in The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. I, No. 2 (1948), pp. 99-112).

25 That they are often called “sovereign” means sovereignty in the sense of the Constitution of the United States, not sovereignty in the sense of international law.

26 Thus, Justice Holmes, in Missouri v. Illinois (1905), distinguished between “international” and “interstate law.” Justice Cardozo, in New Jersey v. Delaware (1934), said of the rule of the “thalweg” that “such considerations have less importance for states united under a general government than for States wholly independent.” Justice Field, in Iowa v. Illinois (1893), spoke of the application in this interstate controversy “of the same rule when a navigable river constitutes the boundary between two independent States,” and added that “the reasons and necessity of the rule of international law may not be as urgent in this country where neighboring States are under the same general government.” In New Jersey v. New York (1931), the Court held: “Different considerations come in when we are dealing with independent sovereigns…In a less degree, perhaps, the same is true of the quasi-sovereignties bound together in the Union” (Italics supplied).

27 Thus, Justice Van Devanter, in Wyoming v. Colorado (1922), spoke of the Laramie River correctly as an “interstate stream.”

28 It depends on the case. In Wyoming v. Colorado (1922), not international law,but the local “doctrine of appropriation,” shared by both States, was applied. But see Kansas v. Colorado (1907), where Colorado had the appropriation, but Kansas the common law system; or Connecticut v. Massachusetts (1937), where both States had the common law system. See also the “Colorado River Compact” of 1922. In Central Railroad Co. v. Jersey City (1908) Justice Holmes applied no international law, but an agreement and statutory law.

29 Guggenheim (op. cit., Vol. I, p. 344, note 38) correctly states that the Swiss Federal Tribunal applies to intercantonal cases international law “in analoger Weise”.

30 “Representatives which Great Britain and the Dominions send to one another as High Commissioners do not enjoy diplomatic status ” (Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op.cit., Vol.I, p. 692). But “ the Finance Acts of 1923 and 1928 confer upon High Commissioners of the Dominions and India… the same immunity from income tax, super tax and land tax as is enjoyed by the accredited ministers of a foreign State”(idem, note 5, pp. 692-693).