1 Negotiations began on Jan. 12, 1961. 44 Dept. of State Bulletin 150 (1961).

2 Agreement with Bulgaria, July 2, 1963, 49 Dept. of State Bulletin 139 (1963), T.I.A.S. No. 5387.

3 Art.I.

4 Agreement with Bumania, March 30, 1960, 11 U. S. Treaties 317, T.I.A.S. No. 4451; 54 A.J.I.L. 742 (1960).

5 See, generally, Lillich, International Claims: Their Adjudication by National Commissions (1962) (hereinafter cited as Lillich).

6 In this case Title III of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, 69 Stat. 570 (1955), 22 U.S.C. $1641 (1958).

7 Christenson, , ‘ ‘ The United States-Rumanian Claims Settlement Agreement of March 30, 1960,” 55 A.J.I.L. 617 (1961) (hereinafter cited as Christenson).Google Scholar

8 Ibid, at 621.

9 Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, Feb. 10, 1947, 61 Stat. 1915, T.I.A.S. No. 1650; 42 A.J.I.L. Supp. 179 (1948).

10 Art. 23(4) (a).

11 Art. 23(8) (a).

12 Sipkov, “Postwar Nationalizations and Alien Property in Bulgaria,” 52 A.J.I.L. 469 (1958). See also Gutteridge, “Expropriation and Nationalisation in Hungary, Bulgaria, and Eoumania,” 1 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 14 (1952). See, generally, Doman, “Compensation for Nationalized Property in Post-War Europe,” 3 Int. Law Q. 323 (1950); idem, “ Postwar Nationalization of Foreign Property in Europe,” 48 Columbia Law Eev. 1125 (1948); Drucker, “ T h e Nationalisation of United Nations Property in Europe,” in 36 Grotius Society Transactions 75 (1951); and Herman, “War Damage and Nationalization in Eastern Europe,” 16 Law and Contemporary Problems 498 (1951).

13 “Without any doubt, the Bulgarian nationalization acts are more unfavorable to foreign property owners than any of the other nationalization decrees discussed above. At the same time, it ought to be noted that foreign property interests are less substantial in Bulgaria than in any of the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe.” Doman, note 12 above, at 1158. See text at and accompanying notes 27-33 below.

14 Rubin has argued that the Balkan nationalizations violated not only international law but also “ t h e specific provisions of the treaties of peace with these countries, treaties which were hardly ratified when they were violated in almost every respect. These governments refused even to negotiate about compensation to the American property owner.” Rubin, Private Foreign Investment 95 (1956). See also idem, “The Almost-Forgotten Claimant: American Citizens’ Property Rights Violated,” 40 A.B.A.J. 961, 962 (1954). Compare Sipkov, note 12 above, at 478, who contends that “the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria does not contain any clauses guaranteeing that United Nations nationals will enjoy their property rights or in case of expropriation will be paid according to international law.” In any event, customary international law requires the payment of just compensation.

15 2 2 Dept. of State Bulletin 351 (1950).

16 As it had in the case of Yugoslavia. See Lillich 106-108.

17 Act of Oct. 6, 1917, Ch. 106, 40 Stat. 411 (1917), as amended, 50 TJ.S.C. App. §§1-40 (1958).

18 5 Fed. Reg. 1400 (1940).

19 Domke, The Control of Alien Property 305 (1947). Art. 25(1) of the Treaty of Peace reads: “Each of the Allied and Associated Powers shall have the right to seize, retain, liquidate or take any other action with respect to all property, rights and interests which at the coming into force of the present Treaty are within its territory and belong to Bulgaria or to Bulgarian nationals, and to apply such property or the proceeds thereof to such purposes as it may desire, within the limits of its claims and those of its nationals against Bulgaria or Bulgarian nationals, including debts, other than claims fully satisfied under other Articles of the present Treaty. All Bulgarian property, or the proceeds thereof, in excess of the amount of such claims, shall be returned.''

20 See Eubin, note 14 above, at 1007-1008. Compare H. Sep. No. 624, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. 13 (1955).

21 69 Stat. 562 (1955), 22 TJ.S.C. §1631 (1958). By Executive Order 10644 of Nov. 8, 1955, 20 Fed. Eeg. 8363 (1955), the President authorized the Attorney General to perform the functions granted to the President by Title II.

22 See note 6 above. Titles I I and I I I established similar procedures with respect to Hungary and Rumania. See Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Tenth Semiannual Eep. 15 (1959). See also Clay, “Belief for War Victims: Eecent Foreign Claims Legislation,” 42 A.B.A.J. 337 (1956), and Ujlaki, , “Compensation for the Nationalization of American-Owned Property in Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania,” 1 N. Y. Law Forum 265 (1955),Google Scholar

23 69 Stat. 570 (1955), 22 TJ.S.C. §1641(2) (1958). Compare the eligibility requirements under the Treaty of Peace in the text at note 11 above. 24 The term includes both foreign and ineligible American corporations. Since a stockholder may have a compensable claim based upon his interest in the latter, i.e., in an American corporation which fails to meet the 50 percent test, the term is more accurate than the traditional but unduly narrow one of “foreign” corporation, used erroneously by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission in the past. See Settlement of Claims by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States and Its Predecessors 224 (1955). But see Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Tenth Semiannual Eep. 93 (1959).

25 69 Stat. 573 (1955), 22 TJ.S.C. §1641j(b) (1958). Of course, if the corporation itself was an eligible claimant, its stockholders were barred from bringing claims. 69 Stat. 573 (1955), 22 U.S.C. §1641j(a) (1958). Compare the eligibility requirements under the Treaty of Peace in the text at note 11 above.

26 72 Stat. 531 (1958), 22 U.S.C. §1641j(b) (1958). “The amendment did not affect claims based upon indirect interests in nationalized concerns.” Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Tenth Semiannual Eep. 212 (1959). Also it “related only to [nationalization] claims under Section 303(2) of the Act. Thus, where [Peace Treaty] claims under Section 303(1) of the Act were involved, the original provisions … applied, irrespective of whether the interests in the corporations in question were direct or indirect.” Ibid, at 121.

27 69 Stat. 574 (1955), 22 U.S.C. §1641o (1958).

28 69 Stat. 571 (1955), 22 U.S.C. §1641b (1958).

29 Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Thirteenth Semiannual Eep. 7 (1960). The Commission's opinions in the most important Bulgarian claims may be found in its Tenth Semiannual Eep. 13-26 (1959). The jurisprudence of the Commission will be the subject of an extensive study under the new research program on Procedural Aspects of International Law to be conducted under the auspices of the International Legal Studies Program of the Syracuse University College of Law.

30 Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Thirteenth Semiannual Eep. 7 (1960). The British Foreign Compensation Commission received 138 claims against Bulgaria and rendered 106 awards. Foreign Compensation Commission, Twelfth Eeport, Cmnd. No. 1834, at 9 (1962).

31 Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Eleventh Semiannual Eep. 1 (1959).

32 49 Dept. of State Bulletin 138 (1963).

33 This figure is a rough one, of course, since the statute's provision calling for payment in full of the principal amount of each award of $1000 or less and the payment in the amount of $1000 on account of the principal of each award of more than $1000 worked a slight distortion in the distribution picture. 69 Stat. 573 (1955), 22 U.S.C. §1641i(a) (1958). Also, 5 percent of the claims fund was deducted to cover administrative expenses. 69 Stat. 571 (1955), 22 U.S.C. §1641a (1958).

34 69 Stat. 574 (1955), 22 U.S.C. §16411 (1958).

35 See note 1 above. Diplomatic relations were resumed in 1959. 41 Dept. of State Bulletin 866 (1959).

36 Christenson has attested that ‘ ‘ the liquidation and distribution of Rumanian vested assets authorized by Congress restricted and confined the subsequent diplomatic discussions regarding final settlement.” Christenson 620-621.

37 See, generally, Lillich 23-40.

38 Christenson 625-626. Compare this general statement with his specific comments accompanying notes 36 above and 40 below.

39 127 F. Supp. 601 (Ct. CI., 1955); 49 A.J.I.L. 410 (1955). See M. H. Cardozo, “Attempts to Transmute Indemnity into Discharge of Claims in Executive Agreements,” 49 A.J.I.L. 560 (1955).

40 In this manner Congress and the Commission, an independent administrative agency, impinge upon a traditionally executive function. Christenson has acknowledged the fact that “ the Department of State in general is not necessarily influenced by the decisions of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, except when the lumpsum agreement is itself limited by antecedent determinations applying international law under a domestic claims program.” Christenson 632 (emphasis added).

41 See text at note 34 above. Since a claimant under such a statute consents to all its provisions, a counter-argument also might be made that he had waived his rights in view of the following provision: “Nothing in this title shall be construed as the assumption of any liability by the United States for the payment or satisfaction, in whole or in part, of any claim on behalf of any national of the United States against any foreign government.” 64 Stat. 16 (1950), 22 TJ.S.C. §1626(f) (1958); 69 Stat. 575 (1955), 22 U.S.C. §1641q (1958). A literal reading of this narrow disclaimer provision seems more reasonable: namely, that if the vested assets are inadequate to pay the adjudicated claims, the United States is under no legal obligation to appropriate funds to see that awardees are fully compensated. It is unlikely that Congress intended to empower the Department of State, deus ex machina, to divest a claimant of either his pre-adjudicated award or his reasonable expectation to share in a future claims settlement along the lines laid down by Congress. Instead, it probably wished only to insulate itself from importuning by claimants such as followed the advisory opinions by the Court of Claims on the French Spoliation Claims. See War Claims Commission Eep., H.E. Doe. No. 67, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. 65-69 (1953).

42 See Christenson 624, note 41.

43 Art. I ( i ) . See note 30 above.

44 Art. 11(a) (b).

45 Art. 111(2) (a). See text at notes 54-61 below.

46 Art. 111(2)(b).

47 Art. IV.

48 49 Dept. of State Bulletin 139 (1963). These assets had not been vested or liquidated. See text at note 21 above. See also Art. 25(5) (c) of the Treaty of Peace.

49 See the Exchange of Notes accompanying the claims agreement, 49 Dept. of State Bulletin 140 (1963). The United States also agreed to certain measures contributing to the development of expanded trade relations between the two countries. IUd. at 141.

5o Presumably this phrase refers to Title I I I of the International Claims Settlement Act, which authorized pre-adjudication, and to possible future legislation providing for the Commission's adjudication of nationalization claims which arose from Aug. 9, 1955, to July 2, 1963, and which were settled by the agreement. See text at notes 64-66 below. An omnibus bill authorizing the adjudication of such claims was introduced on May 29, 1961. See S. 1987, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961), printed and analyzed in Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Fourteenth Semiannual Eep. 24- 26, 31-33 (1961). The same bill was introduced again on Feb. 28, 1963, as S. 947, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963). Special legislation is required to enable the Commission to handle claims against Bulgaria, since Title I of the International Claims Settlement Act does not give the Commission jurisdiction to adjudicate claims after lump-sum settlements with “governments against which the United States declared the existence of a state of war during World War II… . “ 64 Stat. 13 (1950), 22 U.S.C. §1623(a) (1958). It is worth noting that an 1896 statute permits the Department of State to perform this function. 29 Stat. 32 (1896), 31 U.S.C. §547 (1958). See Lillich 35, note 121.

51 Unlike Art. V(A) of the Agreement with Poland, July 16, 1960, 11 U. S. Treaties 1953, T.I.A.S. No. 4545, 55 A.J.I.L. 540 (1961), the present agreement does not contain an undertaking by the foreign country to furnish all documents in its possession necessary to a just determination of the claims. While the vast majority of the claims included within the Bulgarian settlement already have been adjudicated, making such an undertaking superfluous with respect to them, it might have facilitated the task of those late nationalization claimants who still have to establish their right to an award. See text at notes 64-66 below.

52 See text at note 22 above.

53 Christenson 623.

54 See text at notes 11 and 23 above. Rumanian Peace Treaty claims were treated the same way. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Tenth Semiannual Bep. 99- 104 (1959). See Christenson 624.

55 See text at notes 23-25 above. Once again, Rumanian Peace Treaty claims were handled similarly. Christenson 628-629. He concludes that under Title I I I “all United States corporations having less than 50 percent United States ownership and persons who are nationals of the United States having interests in corporations with less than 25 percent direct or indirect United States ownership interest were ineligible to be compensated for treaty claims, even though both types of claimants were eligible under the treaty . “ Ibid. 629.

56 See note 4 above. See also Christenson 629.

57 See text at notes 91-92 and 128-133 below.

58 See text at notes 128-133 below.

59 Christenson 629-630. Note, however, that Peace Treaty claimants are treated less favorably insofar as damages are concerned. See text at notes 62-63 below,

60 Art. 111(2) (a) (emphasis added).

61 Art. 111(a) (b).

62 See note 10 above.

63 69 Stat. 571 (1955), 22 U.S.C. §1641b(l) (1958).

64 See text at note 22 above.

65 There are very few such claimants under the Rumanian Agreement, which contained an analogous provision allowing nationalization claims that arose from 1955 to 1960. Christenson 631.

66 Compare text at notes 73-76 below.

67 See text at note 28 above.

68 Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Tenth Semiannual Eep. 72 (1959) (claim under Hungarian program but applicable law the same). See ibid, at 117. See also ibid, at 17 (claims based upon deposits in nationalized Bulgarian banks not compensable in the absence of a showing that the deposits themselves had been nationalized or otherwise taken).

69 lbid. at 75 (emphasis added). Compare the dissenting opinion of Commissioner Pace in this claim: “ It is an anachronism, in my opinion, to deny the instant claim on the basis of socalled traditional reluctance of international tribunals to look with favor upon claims based on secured creditor interests. Such decisions have always been founded on the theory that any losses sustained by the creditor were too remote, or indirect, and were not the proximate result of the wrongful act forming the basis of the claim. There is nothing remote or indirect, in my opinion, about the loss sustained by a mortgagee when the property securing his mortgage was nationalized… . “ Ibid, at 79 (emphasis added). Under Title IV of the International Claims Settlement Act, 72 Stat. 527 (1958), 22 “CJ.8.C. §1642 (1958), providing for the pre-adjudication of claims against Czechoslovakia, most “creditor claims” also have been denied on the theory that “such losses as a creditor may suffer as a result of a wrongful act committed against his debtor are not the proximate result of the wrongful act, and are too remote or indirect to sustain an award to the creditor.” Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Fourteenth Semiannual Rep. 120 (1961) (emphasis added). However, the Commission has held that “this holding does not apply to bank deposits in pre-1945 currency, to proceeds from life insurance policies, or to any other debt claim, where such debt claim had, in fact, been confiscated by special decree, law, or administrative decision of the Czechoslovakian Government.” Ibid, at 11. Claims based upon canceled mortgages recorded on nationalized property also were allowed. Ibid, at 122.

70 Christenson 632.

71 Ibid.

72 The proposed bill to implement the agreement, note 50 above, supports this construction in that it contains no provision for compensating this class of claimants from the lump sum. If the Department considered their claims settled by the agreement, presumably it would have recommended making awards to such claimants. See text at note 70 above. This construction finds additional support in the contemporaneous inclusion of claims for “debts owed by enterprises which have been nationalized or taken by Poland and debts which were a charge upon property which has been nationalized, appropriated or otherwise taken by Poland,” in Art. 11(c) of the Agreement with Poland, note 51 above. There would have been no need for this specific reference to certain creditor claims had not the Department agreed with the Commission's view that such claims did not fall under a provision providing compensation for the nationalization or other taking of property. See also Commission's Fourteenth Semiannual Eep. 121 (1961) (Department taking same attitude in pending Czech negotiations).

73 See text with accompanying note 69 above.

74 Art. 1(1) (b) (emphasis added).

75 Art. 1(1) (b) of the Agreement with Rumania, note 4 above.

76 Since the agreement does not contain an article defining what ownership interests are compensable, see notes 91-92 below, reference to direct and indirect claims probably was inserted in Art. 1(1) (b) to insure the allowance of indirect stockholder claims. This explanation is consistent with the use of the phrase in Arts. 1(1) (a) and (c).

77 See text at note 22 above.

78 Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Tenth Semiannual Rep. 30 (1959) (claim under Hungarian program but applicable law the same). “The term, ‘contractual or other rights’ … is a broad term including rights acquired under bonds as well as under other types of contracts.” Ibid, at 106.

79 This problem did not arise in any claim against Bulgaria. Ibid, at 31.

80 Ibid, at 46.

81 Ibid, at 29, 89.

82 Ibid, at 29, 106.

83 Ibid. at 95.

84 Ibid. at 27.

85 Ibid, at 94.

86 Ibid, at 95.

87 49 Dept. of State Bulletin 140 (1963).

88 Ibid. Namely, the Foreign Bondholders Protective Council.

89 Ibid.

90 Art. 1 ( 2 ) .

91 Compare Art. I I of the Agreement with Rumania, note 4 above.

92 See text at notes 116-127 below.

93 5 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 804 (1943).

94 See text at note 22 above. Art. 23(8) (a) required claimants to have been United Nations nationals at the date of the Armistice with Bulgaria (Oct. 28, 1944) and at the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace (Sept. 15, 1947). See text at note 11 above.

95 Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Tenth Semiannual Rep. 105 (1959).

96 Ibid. at 101. “To this extent, the eustomary rule of international law may be regarded as having been modified by the treaty and by the International Claims Settlement Act.” Ibid, at 102.

97 Ibid, at 67 (emphasis added). Note that the Commission, while construing the statute by reference to the treaty insofar as the commencement of the requirement was concerned, did not adopt the treaty's provision regarding its duration. See text accompanying note 94 above. Continuous nationality well past Sept. 15, 1947, was required. See text at notes 108-111 below. The liberal treaty requirements somehow managed to slip into Art. 1(2) (a) of the Rumanian Agreement. Quaere: If the Commission had denied a claim under the statute because the claimant, although a U. S. national on the relevant dates in 1944 and 1947, had died thereafter, leaving the claim to non-American heirs, could not these heirs have argued that the agreement made the claim compensable? Compare text with accompanying notes 112-114 below.

98 Art. 1(2) (a). See the comparable article in the Rumanian Agreement, note 97 above.

99 Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Tenth Semiannual Eep. 45 (1959).

100 Art. 1(2) (b).

101 See text at note 22 above.

102 Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Tenth Semiannual Eep. 13, 16 (1959).

103 Ibid. at 38.

104 Ibid, at 39-40.

105 Hearing on S. 706 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. 31-32 (1959) (memorandum of Dr. Martin Domke).

106 Art. 1(1) (c). A possible unintentional discrepancy exists between the statute and the agreement in that Art. 1(2) (c), defining when such “claims” must have been owned by United States nationals, specifically requires ownership only “on April 24, 1941 and continuously thereafter… . “ Under this definition, claims appear compensable even if the person acquiring the underlying obligation prior to April 24, 1941, was a non-national, as long as he acquired U. S. nationality by that date. The Bumanian Agreement also rejects U. S. ownership at the time of acquisition in favor of such ownership at a specified later date. See Arts. 1(1) (c) and 1(2) (c) of the Agreement with Bumania, note 4 above. As a matter of draftsmanship, it also is not technically accurate to require that “claims” predicated upon these obligations must have been owned by U. S. nationals in 1941, for in many instances claims arose only upon default or repudiation at a much later date. Ownership of the underlying obligations in 1941 should suffice. The articles of the Bumanian Agreement, above, closely follow Title III on this score and hence avoid the problem.

107 Art. 1(2) (c).

108 Art. I(2)(a)(b)(c).

109 Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Tenth Semiannual Eep. 17 (1959).

110 Ibid. at 82.

111 Ibid. at 177.

112 The Rumanian Agreement does not contain a provision as to duration of nationality and hence does not raise this problem.

113 17 Dept. of State Bulletin 1270 (1947).

114 In a recent Czech claim, a U. S. national, whose property in Czechoslovakia was taken in 1948, died testate in 1949, leaving all of his property to his wife, also a U. S. national. She in turn died testate on Feb. 25, 1959, leaving 66 percent of her estate to non-nationals. Her executors filed a claim with the Commission on May 21, 1959, which held that its award must be limited to 34 percent of the adjudicated loss, since only that percentage had been “continuously held” by United States nationals until the date of filing with the Commission. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Sixteenth Semiannual Eep. 26, 28-29 (1962). See 72 Stat. 528 (1958), 22 U.S.C. §1642d (1958) (Czech program codifies the Commission's prior Balkan decisions requiring continuous nationality until the date of filing with the Commission). Should the Czech settlement follow the Bulgarian Agreement on this point, an earlier filing with the Department of State might save the balance of the claim. It is worth noting, since Czech claims were received by the Commission from the fall of 1958 until Sept. 15, 1959, Fourteenth Semiannual Eep. 5 (1961), that the above claim was not filed until May 21, 1959. Had the claim been filed more promptly by the claimant's attorney, i.e., before Feb. 25, 1959, an additional $191,892.37 would have been awarded to the claimant's estate. See Lillich and Christenson, International Claims: Their Preparation and Presentation 106 (1962): “Early filing is recommended, especially where continuous nationality is required to the time of filing and a claimant's heirs or legatees are nonnationals.“

115 See text at notes 23-26 above.

116 Agreement with Rumania, note 4 above.

117 69 Stat. 570 (1955), 22 U.8.C. §1641 (1958).

118 69 Stat. 573 (1955), 22 XJ.S.C. §1641j(b) (1958). See Graving, “Shareholder Claims against Cuba,” 48 A.B.A.J. 335, 337 (1962).

119 See text and accompanying note 24 above.

120 This point was made shortly after the Rumanian Agreement was signed. See Christenson 624, note 41. See also Lillich 93, note 361.

121 69 Stat. 573 (1955), 22 U.S.C. §1641 (1958). Cf. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Tenth Semiannual Eep. 84 (1959) (charitable corporation within ambit of term “natural person“).

122 See note 26 above.

123 Cf. Tenth Semiannual Eep., op. cit., 211 (1959) (claim under Soviet program but applicable law the same).

124 Ibid, at 212.

125 ibid, at 94, 212, 218.

126 Christenson takes the position, with which the Department of State and the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission agree, that Title I I I “ a s amended in 1958 was incorporated in the Claims Settlement Agreement with Rumania as Art. I I , sees, (a) and (c)… . “ Christenson 624, note 41. See also ibid, at 625, note 42. Under this view, direct stockholder claims in nationalized corporations come under paragraph (a) and are compensable without regard to the American interest in the Rumanian legal entity, while indirect stockholder claims fall within paragraph (0) and require a 25 percent American interest. Ibid, at 624, note 1. The present writer has accepted this view that the statute's “double standard also is contained … in the Rumanian Claims Agreement of 1960.” Lillich and Christenson, op. cit. note 114 above, at 20. See also Lillich 93, note 361. Compare Graving, note 118 above. However, three reasons arguably permit the construction that all stockholder claims come under the 25 percent requirement of paragraph (c). In the first place, the Commission has so construed the analogous predecessor of paragraph (e): “ In the Yugoslav Claims Agreement of 1948 … claims by stockholders were specifically recognized in article 2(c) which provided for claims ‘indirectly owned’ by United States nationals ‘through interests direct, or indirect’ in a foreign juridical person or persons.” Settlement of Claims by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States and Its Predecessors 224 (1955). It is not unreasonable to assume that the Department of State, when it first drafted the Rumanian settlement, was aware of the Commission's construction of the Yugoslav Agreement and intended paragraph (c) to be similarly construed, especially since any other construction before 1958 would have meant a variance between the existing statute and the contemplated agreement. Secondly, while Art. 2(A) of the Yugoslav Agreement allows claims directly owned by individuals without more, paragraph (a) of the Agreement with Rumania adds the proviso that ownership through a partnership or an unincorporated association is considered to be direct ownership. If stockholder claims were to be included under this paragraph, surely ownership through a corporation would have been appended to it. Finally, bringing all stockholder claims under paragraph (o), while it does cause one discrepancy insofar as direct stockholder claims in nationalized corporations are concerned, results in one less departure from Title I I I than would be the case if all direct claims fell under paragraph (a). For if the latter interpretation should be accepted, stockholders claiming for war damage and financial debts as well as for nationalization would be eligible without regard to the American interest in the corporation concerned, clearly a double departure from the statute's terms. See text accompanying note 26 above.

127 See text with accompanying notes 40-42 above.

128 See note 11 above. Art. 1(1) (a), providing for the compensation of “ d i r e ct and indirect” Peace Treaty claims, supports this contention insofar as these claims are concerned. Furthermore, the same phraseology is found in those paragraphs dealing with nationalization and financial debt claims. Art. 1(1) (b) ( c ).

129 See text at note 26 above.

130 See text at notes 24-25 above. And as the Rumanian Agreement so required. See text accompanying note 126 above.

131 See text at note 23 above.

132 Art. 2(B) of the Agreement with Yugoslavia, July 19, 1948, 62 Stat. 2659, T.I.A.S. No. 1803.

133 See text at note 11 above. See also Graving, note 118 above.

134 Bulgaria concluded such settlements with Switzerland in 1954, with France, Norway and the United Kingdom in 1955, and with Austria in 1962. The Agreement between Bulgaria and the United Kingdom was signed on Sept. 22, 1955, Cmd. 9625 (Treaty Series No. 79 of 1955), 222 U.N. Treaty Series 350.

135 The $24,526,370 lump-sum settlement with Rumania, note 4 above, of which $22,026,370 came from vested assets, followed Commission awards of $84,729,291 for claims against that country. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Thirteenth Semiannual Rep. 7 (1960).

136 See text at notes 43-44 above.

137 Where the Solicitor General got the figure of “approximately 65 percent for Bulgaria” is not known. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, p. 31, Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U. S. 398 (1964), 32 U. S. Law Week 4229, 3 Int. Legal Materials Supp. 381 (March, 1964). Apparently it is just another example of the “puffing” contained in this disappointingly one-sided brief.

138 Foreign Compensation Commission, Thirteenth Eeport, Cmnd. No. 2175, at 8 (1963). However, the classes of claims settled by this agreement and the eligibility requirements contained therein were both wider than the United States-Bulgarian settlement, with a resultant lowering of the percentage payable on awards. Arts. 1 and 3 of the Agreement between Bulgaria and the United Kingdom, note 134 above.

139 Martin, “The Distribution of Funds Under the Foreign Compensation Act, 1950,” in 44 Grotius Society Transactions 243, 249-250 (1959).

140 See Lillich 107-109.

141 Rubin, op. cit. note 14 above, at 98.

142 See text with accompanying notes 45-51 above.

143 The Department's performance caused Senator Keating to introduce “legislation to require Senate ratification of any claims agreement made with foreign nations for claims adjudicated by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission.” 109 Cong. Bee. 23958 (daily ed., Dec. 19, 1963). See S. 2405, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963). The present writer will discuss the cause and effect of this proposal in Essays on the Protection of Foreign Investment (to be published by the Syracuse University Press in its Procedural Aspects of International Law Series).

144 Re, “ The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission: Completed Claims Programs,” 3 Virginia Journal of Int. Law 101, 103 (1963).

145 Christenson 636.

146 Lillich, “The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and the Protection of Foreign Investment,” 48 Iowa Law Eev. 779 (1963). See H.E. 10327, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964).

147 On July 8, 1963, the United States blocked $13,000,000 in private Cuban funds and $20,000,000 in Cuban Government funds. N. Y. Times, July 9, 1963, p. 1, col. 5 (Int'l ed.). See 28 Fed Reg. 6974-6985 (1963).

148 For instance, pre-adjudication entails shifts of power and responsibility within the Federal Government that until now have gone largely unnoticed. See text with accompanying notes 36-42 above. On the need for a thorough study of “the first phase of the process of lump sum settlements,” see Soubbotitch, book review, 9 N. T. Law Forum 257, 262-263 (1963). See also note 143 above.