No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Question As to the Legality of the Ruhr Occupation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
Extract
The question as to the legality of the Ruhr occupation is partly a question of fact and partly a question of law. It is common ground that the measures taken by the French and Belgian troops in the Ruhr valley could not have been authorized by the Treaty of Versailles if the Reparation Commission had not found as a fact that there had been “ voluntary default”(manquement volontaire) on the part of Germany. The question as to whether or not such voluntary default had in fact taken place is not one of those which under Sec. 13 of Annex II to Part VIII of the treaty requires a decision to be taken by a unanimous vote, and as the decision on that point was actually taken by a majority of three to one, the discussion as to the legality of the measures taken in consequence of such decision must proceed on the footing that “voluntary default” on the part of Germany had been established to the satisfaction of the Reparation Commission. The fact that Sir John Bradbury, the British representative on the Commission, gave an adverse vote cannot, however, be left out of consideration,as it proves that at least one eminent expert who, as the representative of his country, was bound to do his best to secure the payment of reparations from Germany, was of opinion that no voluntary default on Germany's part had been proved. The doubt thus thrown on the fact on which the application of sanctions depended ought to have been an additional reason for the utmost care in the endeavor to apply only such sanctions as were clearly provided for by the Treaty of Peace. I propose to show in the following pages that if that care had been applied the occupation of the Ruhr valley would not have taken place.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1924
References
1 The fact that the Italian Government sent a few engineers who only remained a short time hardly justifies an allusion to the measures taken in the Ruhr as measures taken by France, Belgium and Italy. The Italian Government seems to have been under the impression that the occupation of the Ruhr would be nothing more than an “ economic measure”;as soon as they became aware of the real nature of the occupation they withdrew.(See the letter of the Marquis de la Torretta to Lord Curzon, dated August 2,1923, p. 47, Correspondence with Allied Governments respecting Reparation Payments, where it is stated that the Italian Government have repeatedly and publicly asserted their views “against any further occupation of the Ruhr.” )
2 The words “ economic and financial” qualify the word “ reprisals ” no less than the word “prohibitions.” The French text: “ actes de prohibitions et de représailles économiqueset financières” makes this quite clear.
3 See Report of the work of the Reparation Commission from 1920 to 1922, p. 257.
4 Loc. tit., p. 257.
5 The italics are the writer's.
6 Baudry-Lacantinerie et Houques-Fourcade, Traiti thiorique et pratique de droit civil,3rd ed. (1907), pp. 211-212.
7 The italics are the writer's.
8 See the French Code Civil, Arts. 2095-2113.
9 See editorial comment by Mr.Finch, George A., Vol. 17(1923), pp. 724-733.Google Scholar
10 Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U. S. 453.
11 The italics are the writer's. Numerous references to well-known authorities are given in footnote 27 of the Commission's opinion in support of the rule of construction quoted in the text.
12 Correspondence with the Allied Governments (Miscellaneous No. 5), Command 1943,on p. 56.
13 Comment by Mr.Finch, , ibid., p. 733.Google Scholar