2 King, , “Jurisdiction over Friendly Foreign Armed Forces,” this Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), p. 539.Google Scholar

3 Brinton, , Jurisdiction over Members of Allied Forces in Egypt, this Journal, Vol. 38 (1944), p. 375.Google Scholar

4 League of Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 173, p. 434.

5 Department of State, Executive Agreement Series, No. 356.

6 This statement is made on the authority of two officers of the U. S. Army who were in Egypt at the time and in a position to know the facts.

7 This Journal, Vol. 39 (1945), pp. 345, 347, 349. Other decisions of this class, not reprinted in this Journal, are Ministère Public c. Gaitanos, , Journal des Tribunaux Mixtes, July 13–14, 1942 Google Scholar; M.P. c. Anne, J.T.M., Jan. 21–22, 1944; M.P. c. Cambouras, J.T.M., Jan. 26–27, 1944; M.P. c. Scordalos, J.T.M., May 19–20, 1944.

8 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, 1928, p. 743. Article 20 is, found in Chapter II, headed, Bâtiments and militaires. The article is as follows:

“Art. 20

Si des gens du bord, se trouvant à terre, commettent des infractions aux lois du pays, ils peuvent être arrêtés par les agents de l’autorité territorials et déferés à la justice local. Avis de l’arrestation doit être donné au commandant du navire, qui ne peut exiger qu’ils lui soient remis.

Si les délinquants, n’étani point arrêtés, ont rejoint le bord, l’autorié territoriale ne peut pas les y saisir, mais seulement demander qu’ils soient deférés aux tribunaux compétents d’après la loi du pavilion et qu’avis lui soit donné du résultat des poursuites.

Si des gens du bord, se trouvant à terre en service commandé, soit individuellement, soit collectivement, sont inculpés de délit ou de crime commis à terre, l’autorite territoriale peut procéder à leur arrestation, mais elle doit les livrer au commandant sur la demande de celui-ci.

L’autorié territoriale doit, lors de la remise des délinquants, faire suivre les procèsverbaux constatant les faits; elle a le droit de demander qu’ils soient poursuivis devant les autorités compétentes et qu’avis lui soit donné du résultat des poursuites.

9 Same, p. 736.

10 See The Prize Cases, 2 Black 635, in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the legality of the blockade of the coasts of the Southern States during the Civil War, because war existed in fact, though there had been no declaration.

11 Hyde, C. C. , International Law, 2d ed., Vol. II, Sec. 255; Oppenheim, International Law, 4th ed., Vol. I, Sec. 451 Google Scholar; Moore, J. B. , Digest of International Law, Vol. II, Sec. 256 Google Scholar; Hackworth, G. H. , Digest of International Law, Vol. II, p. 422 Google Scholar.

12 Those of Stamatopoulos, Cambouras, Gongoulis, and Malero, cited above, note 7.

13 This Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), p. 560.

14 Hackworth, , Digest, Vol. II, p. 408 Google Scholar; Oppenheim, , International Law, 5th ed., Vol. I, pp. 666, 667 Google Scholar; Hyde, , International Law, 2d ed., Sees. 252, 253 Google Scholar; The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 144, 145; Chung Chi Cheung v. The King, 1939 A.C. 160.

15 The notes are printed in full in English and Chinese in Department of State, Executive Agreement Series, No. 360.

16 Executive Agreement Series, No. 355.

17 Annexed to the Convention on Private International Law adopted at Havana, Feb. 20, 1928; Final Act of the Sixth International Congress of American States, p. 16. Article 299 cited is quoted in this author’s prior article, this Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), p. 547.

18 Among these is Lafayette, Princípios de Direito International, Rio de Janeiro, , 1902, Vol. I, par. 97, p. 161 (translation supplied):Google Scholar —

The special permission for foreign’ military forces to pass through the national territory or remain for a time within it includes virtually the exemption of these forces from territorial jurisdiction. In truth subject to the local sovereignty, they would escape in fact from the authority and direction of their own government and find themselves under the power of a foreign government, which would in effect make them useless as agencies of defense of the State to which they belong.

The exemption, however, from the territorial sovereignty limited by their raison d’être includes only that which concerns the command, direction and discipline of the forces.

In this order of ideas it is clear that the military authority retains the right to try and punish crimes and delinquencies committed by officers and soldiers, not only when perpetrated by one against the other, but also when against the inhabitants of the country.

19 5 & 6 Geo. 6, c. 31. The title of the act is “An Act to give effect to an agreement recorded in Notes exchanged between His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of the USA, relating to jurisdiction over members of the military and naval forces of the USA.” The notes mentioned in the title are printed in the schedule annexed to the act and also in U. S. Department of State, Executive Agreement Series, No. 355. This act and the legal position of members of the United States forces in the United Kingdom are discussed in this Journal in the present writer’s prior article, Vol. 36 (1942), p. 539, at pp. 556–559, and by Dr. Egon Schwelb, Vol. 38 (1944), p. 50. The subject is also treated by Prof. Arthur, L. Goodhart, in American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 28 (1942), p. 762 Google Scholar; but the present writer finds himself unable to agree with some of the things there said.

20 Statutory Rules and Orders, 1942, Nos. 966, 1679, 2192.

21 By the proviso to Sec. 1 (1).

22 File CM 275747, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U. S. Army.

23 23 Geo. 5, c. 6.

24 3 & 4 Geo. 6, c. 51.

25 This writer’s previous article already cited, this Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), p. 539, especially at pp. 556, 557; Kuratowski, , “Military Courts of Foreign Governments in the United Kingdom,” in Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 28, p. 1 Google Scholar; Schwelb, , “Jurisdiction over the Members of the Allied Forces in Great Britain,” in Czechoslovak Year Book of International Law, 1942, p. 147 Google Scholar; Schwelb, , “Status of U. S. Forces in English Law,” this Journal, Vol. 38 (1944), p. 50 Google Scholar; Schwelb, , “Status of Soviet Forces in British Law,” this Journal, Vol. 39 (1945), p. 330 Google Scholar.

26 Allied Forces Act, 1940, Sec. 1 (1).

27 Sec. 2 (1).

28 Sec. 2 (3).

29 Principles of International Law, 6th ed., Sec. 107, p. 246.

30 International Law, 4th ed., Vol. I, Sec. 445.

31 Chung Chi Cheung v. The King, 1939 A. C. 160.

32 Czechoslovak Yearbook of International Law, 1942, p. 169. Dr. Schwelb said the same thing on another occasion. See Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 28, p. 24.

33 Hansard’s Debates, Vol. 364, No. 106, Aug. 21, 1940, column 1405.

34 Columns 1404, 1405. When the Attorney General of England officially makes such a statement as that quoted in the text, its correctness may be accepted. However, examination of the history of Great Britain’s military contacts with friendly powers confirms it. The important part of the agreement which concedes complete exemption to British forces in Prance during the first World War is quoted in this writer’s earlier article in this Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), p. 549. The agreement with reference to British forces in Egypt is quoted in the same article, p. 553. As to British forces in Ethiopia, see the “annexure” to the treaty between the two countries concluded December 19, 1944: Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 12, pp. 200, 203. The status of British forces in the United States is discussed in later sections of the present article. Nor will it do to say that British forces have been serving in countries having a less advanced system of criminal justice, to which British soldiers and sailors ought not to be subjected. That may be true as to Egypt and Ethiopia but it is not true of France and the United States. Conversely, Norwegians, Dutchmen, and Belgians in Great Britain would not admit, nor would Englishmen contend, that the former’s courts-martial are so inferior to British courts that the British population would not be adequately protected if soldiers and sailors of those nations serving in Britain were to be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their own military tribunals.

35 Statutory Rules and Orders, 1942, No. 2410.

36 The agreement is printed in full in H. Rep. Doc. 158, 77th Cong., 1st Sess.; Department of State, Executive Agreement Series, No. 235; and this Journal, Vol. 35 (1941), Supplement, p. 134. Art. IV is printed and discussed in this writer’s prior paper, this Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), pp. 553–555.

37 Statutory Rules and Orders 1942, No. 1576.

38 Vol. 36, pp. 555, 556.

39 Statutory Rules, 1942, No. 457.

40 44 State Reports N.S.W. 45, 61 Weekly Notes 38 (1944).

41 7 Cranch 116.

42 7 Cranch 140.

43 97 U. S. 509, 515.

44 100 U. S. 158, 165.

45 100 U. S. 160.

46 100 U. S. 165.

47 Vol. 36, this Journal, pp. 561–565.

48 Act of Jan. 2, 1942, as amended April 22, 1943, and July 31, 1945; 31 U. S. Code 224d.

49 The United States Forces Emergency Regulations 1943, Serial Number 1943/56.

50 U. S. Department of State, Executive Agreement Series, No. 392.

51 See note 19.

52 Ordinances Nos. LVI and LVII of 1942, published in the Gazette of India, October 26, 1942.

53 23 Geo. 5, c. 6.

54 3 & 4 Geo. 6, c. 51.

55 Section 12.

56 P C. 2546.

57 23 Geo. 5, c. 6.

58 3 & 4 Geo. 6, c. 51

59 P. C. 5484.

60 7 Cranch 116.

61 P. C. 2813, April 6, 1943.

62 Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, c. 35.

63 On April 9, 1943, P. C. 2931.

64 Reference re Exemption of U. S. Forces from Canadian Criminal Law, [1943] 4 Dominion L. R. 11.

66 5 & 6 Geo. 6, c. 31.

66 7 Cranch 116.

67 [1939] A. C. 160.

68 At p. 33.

69 P. 39.

70 [1939] A. C. 160, especially at pp. 174, 176.

71 P. 39.

72 7 Cranch 116.

73 [1939] A. C. 160.

74 5 & 6 Geo. 6, c. 31. The statement in the text is merely another way of saying what the Attorney General of England admitted in the House of Commons. See this article, above, p. 272.

75 P. C. 9694.

76 The promulgation of the above Order in Council was followed by diplomatic correspondence dealing with the application of the Order to certain situations. The correspondence has been mimeographed as inclosures 2, 3, and 4 to a letter of The Adjutant General, U. S. Army, dated 6 April 1944, to certain Commanding Generals (AG file 250.4 (5 April 44) OB-S-E-M).

77 P. C. 6566.

78 Digest of Opinions of the Judge Advocate General, U. S. Army, 1912, p. 511, par. VIIIB; introductory sentence of the Articles of War, 10 U. S. Code 1471; (British) Army Act, sec. 159; (British) Manual of Military Law, Chap. V (ii), especially sec. 15.

79 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 13, p. 222 (Aug. 19, 1945); this Journal, Vol. 39 (1945), Supplement, p. 215.

80 Among such agreements, for detailed considerations of which space is lacking, are that between the United States and the Danish minister at Washington concerning our forces in Greenland (Department of State, Executive Agreement Series 204; this Journal, Vol. 35 (1941), Supplement, p. 129), and that between Great Britain and Ethiopia (Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 12, pp. 200, 203). The form, though not the content, of the Greenland agreement, and the authority of the Danish minister to make it, were discussed in this Journal, Vol. 35 (1941), p. 506, by Professor Herbert Briggs, W. Google Scholar .

By several notes passing between the Belgian Ambassador at Washington and the Secretary of State, bearing dates between March 31 and August 4, 1943, an executive agreement similar to that made with China was effected with Belgium with respect to forces of the United States in the Belgian Congo (Department of State, Executive Agreement Series, No. 395). In April 1943 the government of Iraq passed a law conceding to United States forces on its soil immunity from local criminal jurisdiction and taxation. The text of the law is not available.

81 7 Cranch 116.

82 The Paquete Hdbana, 175 U. S. 677, 700.

83 58 Stat. 643, 22 U. S. Code 701–706.

84 Proclamation 2626, 9 Fed. Register 12403.

85 Memorandum No. 650–45, War Department, 19 February 1945, Jurisdiction over British and Canadian Forces in the United States.

86 7 Cranch 116.

87 This Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), p. 539, especially at pp. 548, 549, 560.

88 7 Cranch 116, at p. 139.