Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 April 2017
The decisions of the British courts in The Arantzazu Mendi and Banco de Bilbao v. Sancha and Rey that the British Government had accorded de facto recognition to the Franco insurgents become all the more curious in the light of unequivocal denials by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons that such recognition had been accorded prior to the dates of these decisions. An examination of these statements in the House of Commons raises an interesting question: What constitutes de facto recognition? More particularly, do (1) the conclusion of an agreement of a “provisional” nature with an unrecognized régime, or (2) the institution of “unofficial” relations (relations officieuses) therewith, or (3) the granting of immunities to executive agents, constitute de facto recognition of the régime so treated?
1 [1939] A. C. 256; this Journal, Vol. 33 (1939), p. 583. See also Briggs, , “ De Fado and De Jure Recognition: The Arantzazu Mendi ,” this Journal, Vol. 33 (1939), pp. 689–699 Google Scholar.
2 [1938] 2 K. B. 176.
3 Moore, J. B., in A Digest of International Law (1906), Vol. I, p. 73 Google Scholar.
4 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International (Brussels, 1936), Vol. 2, pp. 300-305Google Scholar; translation in this Journal, Vol. 30 (1936), Supp., pp. 186, 187.
5 I will not be able to examine in this article—except incidentally—the more specific problem of whether the conclusion of an agreement of a “provisional” nature with an unrecognized régime constitutes recognition willy-nilly. Consult Jaffe, L. L., in Judicial Aspects of Foreign Relations—In Particular of the Recognition of Foreign Powers (1933), p. 113 Google Scholar ff. See also Hudson, Manley O., “Recognition and Multipartite Treaties,” this Journal, Vol. 23 (1929), pp. 126–132 Google Scholar.
6 Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, Official Report (cited hereafter as Hansard, 5th Series), Vol. 328, cols. 1124-1125.
7 Ibid., cols. 1385-1388.
8 On Feb. 8, 1939, Mr. R. A. Butler, in Parliamentary Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs, gave the House the following information: “Consuls appointed before General Franco’s forces acquired control of the places where they reside continue to carry out their functions at Seville, Barcelona, Palma, Las Palmas, and Tenerifie; and vice-consuls at Corunna, Jerez de la Frontera, Huelva, Gijon, La Linea, Orotava, and Fernando Po. There are also acting vice-consuls at Algeciras, Cadiz and San Feliu de Guixols. Assistant agents, who perform similar duties, have been appointed at Bilbao, Malaga, San Sebastian, and Vigo since General Franco’s forces occupied these towns.” Hansard, 5th Ser., Vol. 343, col. 919.
9 Ibid., Vol. 328, col. 1386.
10 Ibid., cols. 1503 and 1510.
11 New York Times, Nov. 17, 1937, 6:5.
12 Hansard, 5th Ser., Vol. 328, col. 1518. The French press was reported as greatly upset by the British plan to exchange agents with the Franco régime. New York Times, Nov. 4, 1937, 2:3.
13 Hansard, 5th Ser., Vol. 329, col. 1665. Italics by the writer. See also ibid., Vol. 338, cols. 195-196.
14 Hansard, 5th Ser., Vol. 330, cols. 1583-1584, 1800. See also The Times (London), Dec. 20, 1937, 11:4.
15 Ibid., Vol. 330, col. 4. The phraseology is Eden’s, on Dec. 6, 1937.
16 New York Times, Nov. 3, 1937, 2:2; ibid., Nov. 26, 1937, 1:2.
17 Hansard, 5th Ser., Vol. 334, cols. 4-5. On the use of the title “Spanish Nationalist Government” see also ibid., Vol. 333, col. 1979, and Vol. 337, col. 1510. This was also the title used by the Foreign Office in their letters to the British courts. The day after Mr. Chamberlain announced the de jure recognition of the Franco Government, the Prime Minister referred to the Spanish Republican Government as “the Red leaders.” Ibid., Vol. 344, col. 1118, Feb. 28, 1939.
18 Cf. Banco de Bilbao ». Sancha and Rey, he. cit.; The Arantzazu Menai, loc. cit.; Briggs, loc. cit.
19 Hansard, 5th Ser., Vol. 343, cols. 1340-1341. Cf. also, ibid., col. 1698, Feb. 15, 1939, and ibid., Vol. 344, col. 5, Feb. 20,1939. In the meantime British Government spokesmen ceased referring to the Franco régime as the Spanish Nationalist Government and as late as Feb. 20, 1939, Mr. R. A. Butler referred to it as “the Burgos authorities.” Ibid., Vol. 344, col. 3.
20 Ibid., Vol. 319, col. 32.
21 Ibid., Vol. 333, col. 617.
22 Hansard, 5th Ser., Vol. 344, col. 873.
25 Paxon, Frederic L., in The Independence of the South American Republics (1903), p. 106 ffGoogle Scholar.
24 Ibid., p. 111.
25 Smith, H. A., in Great Britain and the Law of Nations, Vol. I (1932), p. 80 Google Scholar. See also the documentary evidence of British practice, ibid., pp. 115-170. In Taylor ». Barclay, 2 Sim. 214 (1828), plaintiff contended that the appointment of consuls to Spanish America and the meeting of British and Guatemalan officials at the Panama Congress might be considered recognition. The Vice-Chancellor, however, said that the British Foreign Office had informed him that Guatemala had not been recognized by Great Britain. Cf. Bushe-Fox, P. L., “The Court of Chancery and Recognition, 1804-31,” 12 British Year Book of International Law (1931), pp. 63, 71Google Scholar.
26 Message of the President of the United States . . . and Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs (1862). 37th Cong., 3d sess., House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 1, p. 9. Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, Nov. 26, 1861. Cf. also Bonham, Müledge L., in The British Consuls in the Confederacy (Columbia University Thesis, 1911)Google Scholar, passim.
27 Documents diplomatiques français, I, 1, No. 173, p. 207.
28 Fontes Juris Gentium, Ser. B, Sec. 1, Tom. 2, Pars 1, p. 100.
29 Moore, Digest, I, 151.
30 Ibid., 159-160. See also, Secretary Olney to Mr. Tillman, American Minister in Ecuador, Nov. 6,1895, ibid., p. 156; and Hill, Acting Secretary, to Hart, American Minister at Bogotá, Sept. 8, 1900, ibid., p. 139.
31 Opinions of Commissioners (1927), pp. 42, 45, 46.
32 See Wriston, Henry M., in Executive Agents in American Foreign Relations (1929), p. 508 Google Scholar.
33 Ibid., pp. 489-506.
34 Ibid., pp. 510-513.
35 Ibid., pp. 515-516.
36 Ibid., p. 523.
37 Cf. U. S. Foreign Relations, 1920, Vol. Ill, p. 640 ff. The United States recognized the three Baltic states on July 28, 1922. Ibid., 1922, Vol. II, p. 873.
38 U. S. For. Rel., 1920, Vol. Ill, p. 661. The Secretary of State (Colby) to the Com missioner at Riga (Young), Sept. 11, 1920.
39 Ibid., p. 662. Colby to Young, Sept. 23, 1920.
40 Ibid., p. 664.
41 U. S. For. Rel., 1920, Vol. III, p. 662. Albrecht to Colby, Oct. 6, 1920. “Wirgo was one of the commission to obtain recognition of the Entente Powers.” Ibid.
42 Ibid., p. 663. Colby to Young, Oct. 11, 1920. For the status, and the relations of American Commissioner Ellis Loring Dresel with the German Foreign Office prior to the treaty of peace with Germany, see U. S. For. Rel., 1919, II, p. 244 and ibid., 1920, II, p. 258 ff. Compare also the status of the “American Commissioner at Vienna,” Mr. Arthur Hugh Frazier, from Sept. 13,1920, to Nov. 26,1921. On Nov. 19,1921, Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes informed Frazier that by the exchange of ratifications of the peace treaty, “diplomatic relations between the United States and Austria may be resumed. You are instructed to request your provisional recognition as Chargé d’Affaires pending arrival letters of credence . . . Inform consuls.” Ibid., 1921,1, p. 279. See also Salm v. Frazier, Court of Appeals of Rouen, 1933, this Journal, Vol. 28 (1934), p. 382. Mr. Ulysses Grant-Smith was “American Commissioner at Budapest” prior to the conclusion of the treaty of peace with the new Hungarian Government. Cf. U. S. For. Rel., 1921, II, pp. 249, 260.
43 A. M. Luther v. Sagor, [1921] 3 K. B, 532, 534-535.
44 Ibid., p. 540.
45 H. A. Smith, op. cit., p. 79.
46 H. M. Wriston, op. cit., p. 525.
47 Costa, L.-A. Podesta, “Règles à suivre pour la reconnaissance d’un gouvernement de facto par des États étrangers,” 29 Revue générale de droit international public (1922), pp. 47, 58Google Scholar.
