1 This paper does not discuss the impact or lack of impact on the position or role of the United States in Southeast Asia which might or might not result from congressional action with respect to termination of the war.

2 Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 100, 16S (1948).

3 On these points ef. Lewis Roberts, W.. “Litigation Involving ‘Termination of War,’” 43 Kv. L..J. 199 (1955)Google Scholar “Incident Determination of the End of the War” Note 47 Col. L Rev. 255 (1947). <doubt/>

4 Cf. Bas v. Tiniv. (“The Eliza”). 4 Dall. 37 (1800); Talbot v. Seeman (“The Amelia”). 1 Cranch 1 (1801); Little v. Barreme (“The Flying Fish”), 2 Crarch 170 (1S04). For a rciatid decision which found that Indian wars also fell under the category of “imperfect” war authorized by Congress see Montoya v, United States, 180 U.S. 261 (1901).

5 Cf. Clinton Rossiter. The Supreme Court and the Commander in Chief. Ithaca. Corn. 11 University Press, 1951. p. 67. Relevant court cases are. for the Boxer Rebellion. Hamilton v. McClaughry 136 Fed. 445 (C.C.F.D. Kan. 1905). in which the court held that although the existence of a state or condition of war is determined by the political department of the government, and although, there had been no formal declaration of war by that department, such a declaration is not necessary in Older (or there to be a “condition of war.” The court said that the question was whether The United States was “prosecuting its right in Chinese territory by force of arms.’’ This being the case it sound that a condition war existed. For cases in which the Filipino insurrection was considered to be a “state of war” see Warner, Barnes &; Co. v. United States 40 <doubt/>

6 See U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Termination of State of War with Germany. Report, to accompany H.J. Res. 327. Apr. 6, 1920. With Cong., 2d sess. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1920. (H. Rept. 66–801. 2parts). 3 p. and 19 p. and U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Terminating the State of War Existing between Germany and Austria-Hungarv and the United States. Report, to accompany H.J. Res. 327. Apr. 30. 1920. 66th Cong., 2d sess. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1920 (S. Rept. 66-568) 2 p.

7 U.S. Congress. House. Veto message relating to Peace Resolution. Message from the President of the United States returning to the House of Representatives without approval H J. Res. 327 .. . May 28,1920. 66th Cong., 2d sess. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1920. (H. Doc. 799). 2 p.

8 41 Stat. 1359(1921).

9 32 Op. Attorney General 505. 510 (1921).

10 42 Stat. 105 (1921). See U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Terminating State of War with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Report, to accompany S.J. Res. 16. June 7, 1921. 67th Cong., 1st sess. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1921. (H. Rept. 67–148, 2 parts). 7 p. and U.S. Congress, Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Peace with Germany. Report, to accompany S.J. Res. 16. April 25,1921. 67th Cong., 1st sess. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1921. (S. Rept. 67–2). 6 p.

11 42 Stat. 1944(1921).

12 The ratifications of th3 treaty were exchanged on November 11,1921. Hudson, Manley O., “The Duration of the War Between the United States and Germany.” 39 Harv. L. Rev. 1020. 1045 (1926)Google Scholar.

13 See U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee No. IV. Cessation of Hostilities, Termination of the War and Emergencies. Hearings. . . 79th Cong., 2d sess. May 27 and 28,1946. Serial No. 17, part 2. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946.192 p. and U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee No. IV. Cessation of Hostilities, Termination of the War and Emergencies. War and Emergency Statutes Classified by Termination Provisions. Based on a Compilation submitted by the Office of the Attorney General, November 30, 1945. 79th Cong., 1st sess., Serial No. 17. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946. 92 p. See also U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary, Repealing Certain Statutes Relating to rite War and Emergencies. Report, to accompany LI.R. 7147. July 26. 1946. 79th Cong.. 2d sess. Washington, U.S. Government. Printing Office. 1946. (House Rept. 79–2682). 16 p.

14 Proc. No. 2714.12 Fed. Reg. 1. There were nearly 1.000 war-related statutes enacted during the war, but many of them expired automatically. Compare this with 20-25 enacted during World War I. “ See U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Terminating Certain Emergency and War Powers. Report, to accompany S.J. Res. 123. July 7. 1917. 80th Cone., 1st sess. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947. (House Rept. S0-79’.t). 40 p. and U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Joint Resolution Declaring that in Interpreting Certain Acts of Congress, Joint Resolutions, and Proclamations, World War If, the Limited Emergency, and the Unlimited Emergency Shall be Construed as Terminated and Peace Established. Report, to accompany S.J. Res. 123. June 23. 1947. 80th Cong., 1st sess. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. 1947. (S. Rept. S0-339, 2 parts) 8 p. and 104 p. The hearings were not printed. In S. Kept. 80-339, part 2, there is a complete list of all war and national emergency statutes and the effect which the joint resolution would have on each one.

16 For an up-to-date listing of all statutes which become effective in a state of war or national emergency, see Executive Office of the President. Office of Emergency Preparedness. Guide to Emergency Powers Conferred by Laws in Effect on Jan. 1, 1969. This is the most recent compilation, and OEP (which is being abolished) does not plan to reissue it. The Department of Defense publication on this subject is: Department of Defense. General Counsel. Digest of War and Emergency Legislation Affecting the Department 01 Defense. Revised as of 1973.

17 65 Stat. 451 (1951): TIAS 2(90. 3 UST 31B9.

18 Proc. 2974. April 2S, 1952. 17 Fed. Reg. 3815.

19 Proc. 2914. December 16, 1950. 15 Fed. Reg. 9029.

20 U.S Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. U.S. Commitments to foreign Powers.

21 Cf. Kenneth Pye, A., “The Legal Status of the Korean Hostilities,” 45 Georgetown L.J. 45 (1966)Google Scholar.

22 Ludecke v. Watkins, op. cit.

23 Note 8 U.S.C. 1140 and 1140 E, which state that the President can terminate the period of entitlement by which aliens who serve in the armed forces during hostilities can gain citizenship. Presumably. Congress

25 See definitions and discussion of these terms in 03 C. J. S. 6 and cases cited therein.

26 Pye, “The Legal Status of the Korean Hostilities.” op. cit., p. 45 et seq. The author concludes that “the hostilities which commenced in Korea in June 1959 did in fact constitute a “state of war” but he made no attempt to characterize it as de facto or de jure.

27 Ibid.t p. 47. See also Western Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Meadowes, 261 SW 2d 654 (1953), cert. den. 347 U.S. 928 (1954).

28 A preponderance of the relevant litigation was for the purpose of determining contractual rights or criminal liability under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for offenses which involved conduct in “time of war.” For these purposes, courts experience little difficulty in reaching a conclusion that war, in fact, was contemplated by the contracting parties or the Congress (in the case of the UCMJ). SeeD. B. Stevens, “Time of War and Vietnam,” 8 AF JAG L. Rev. 23 (1966) and Roberts, “Litigation Involving Termination of the War.” on. Cit.

29 2 Black 635, 670(1862).

30 Cf. citations in note 4. The distinction between “perfect” and “imperfect” war, and the existence of a “state of war” without a declaration of war are also recognized traditionally in international law. See. inertia. the relevant material in the Department of State’s various editions of Digest of International Law.

31 Cf. Berk v. Laird, 317 F. Supp. 715 (E.D. N. Y. 1970), appealed and affirmed 249 F. 2d 302 (C.A. 2, 1970).

32 A clear expression of the doctrine that a de jure war can exist without a formal declaration of war is contained in the dissenting opinion contained in Beley v. Pa. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 95 A 2d 202 (1953): “Many courts throughout the land have held that war can exist between the United state’s and the armed forces of another nation de facto or de jure, without any formal declaration cf war; . . “ The court cited a line of supporting cases going back to the Civil War.

33 413 F. 2d 1039 (C.A. 2, 1971).

34 TIAS 7542.

35 TIAS 7568.

36 A cease-fire agreement in Laos was signed by the two opposing Laotian forces in February

37 Pauline A. Mian. The Role of the French National Assembly in Ending the First Indochinese War (1947–1954). Congressional Record (daily ed.) A June 2, 1971: S8032–88038.

<Doubt

40 Pye, “The Legal Status of the Korean Hostilities.” op. cit.