¹ Decisions and Opinions of the Commissioners, Oct. 5,1929, to Feb. 15,1930, p. 157; this Journal, Vol. 24 (1930), p. 388.

² Other decisions on the Calvo Clause are collected in Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (1915), pp. 800-810; and in Ralston, Law and Procedure of International Tribunals (1926), pp. 58-72.

³ Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 21; this Journal, Vol. 20 (1926), p. 800.

⁴ Decisions and Opinions of the Commissioners, p. 167.

⁵ Compare the extraordinary statement of the Mexican Agent in the Mexican Union Railway Case, that the question of the Calvo Clause was a vital one to the Mexican Government,and that if the Commissionshould take jurisdiction in this case, the Mexican Government would register a protest against such a decision and would make a reservation as to its rights. Id., p. 173.

⁶ The Spanish text, as reproduced by the American Commissioner in U. S. A. (International Fisheries Co.) v. United Mexican States, Opinions of Commissioners, 1931, p. 206, at 260, reads:

“ El contratista y todos las personas que como empleados o con cualquier otro carácter, tomaron parte en la construcción de la gran obra objeto de este contrato, directa o indirectamente, serán considerandos como mexicanos en todo lo que se relacione, dentro de la Republica, con la ejecución de tal obra y con el cumplimiento de este contrato; sin que puedan alegar con respecto a los intereses o negocios relacionados con éste, ni tener otros derechos ni medios de hacerlos valer, que los que las leyes de la República conceden a los mexicanos, ni disfrutar de otros más que los establecidos a favor de éstos; quedando, en consecuencia, privados de todo derecho deextranjería, y sin que por ningún motivo sea se admitirse la intervención de agentes diplomáticos extranjeros en ningiin asunto que se relacione con este contrato.”

⁷ Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 28; this Journal, loc. cit., pp. 803, 805.

⁸ In the case of Georges Pinson, M. Verzijl, presiding commissioner of the French-Mexican Claims Commission, stated by way of obiter that a similar article in the French-Mexican Claims Convention “ expressly” excluded the principle of the Calvo Clause. Jurisprudence de la Commission Franco-Mexicaine des Réclamations (1933), p. 24.

⁹ It is conceivable that the word “rightfully” is here used with a moral rather than a legal connotation. This is strengthened by the language of the Commission throughout the opinion: the claimant “ wilfully ignores” his agreement; he has “ waived his right to conduct himself as if nocompetent authorities existed in Mexico; as if he were engaged in fulfilling a contract in an inferior country subject to a system of capitulations.” The present writer agrees that a moral argument may have considerable force in view of the provision that the decision is to be “ in accordance with the principle of international law, justice and equity.” The Commission, however, does not clearly place its holding on such moral grounds. Professor Borchard doubts whether Article V of the convention is susceptible of the interpretation given it by the Commission, but thinks the conclusion may be sustained “ as a matter of expediency and justice.” See Borchard, , “ Decisions of the ClaimsCommissions, United States and Mexico,” this Journal , Vol. 20 (1926), p. 536, at p. 540.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 31; this Journal, loc. cit.,p.808.

¹¹ Cf., however, Commissioner Nielsen dissenting in the International Fisheries Case: “ In the ultimate determination of responsibility under international law I think an international tribunal in a case grounded on a complaint of a breach of a contract can properly give effect to principles of law with respect to confiscation. International tribunals in dealing with cases growing out of breaches of contract are notconcernedwith suits on contracts instituted and conducted comformably to procedure prescribed by the common law or statutes in countries governed by Anglo-Saxon law, nor comformably to corresponding procedure in countries in which the principles of the civil law obtain. International law does not prescribe rules relative to the forms and the legal effect of contracts, but that law is, in my opinion, concerned with the action authorities of a government may take with respect to contractual rights. If a government agrees to pay money for commodities and fails to make payment, it seems to me that an international tribunal may properly say that the purchase price of the commodities has been confiscated, or that property rights in a contract have been destroyed or confiscated. Claim is based in the instant case on allegations with respect to the confiscation of valuable contractual rights growing out of an arbitrary cancellation of a concession.” Opinions of Commissioners, 1931, pp. 241-242.

¹² Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 15; this Journal, Vol. 20 (1926), p. 794.

¹³ Cf. Borchard, , book review of Anzilotti, Cours de Droit International, 44 Harv. L. Rev. (1931),Google Scholar 1322: “ Every decision of such an international tribunal is by no means international law, as, for example, where the tribunal sits in review of municipal law or where by the protocol, as in the Mexican-United States Claims Commission of 1926, it is privileged to disregard the local remedy rule.”

¹⁴ On the interpretation of the contractual clause cf. infra, p. 467

¹⁵ This was pointed out by the Mexican Commissioner in his opinion in the International Fisheries Case: “ It is worthyof note that in this case as in that of the North American Dredging Company, the American Agency maintained that the question was not one of non-fulfillment of contract, but one of international delinquency incurred directly by the state, of a denial of justice, of a wrongful act, and thus the memorial of said claim spoke of interruptions to the work owing to arbitrary orders given by Mexican officials, of the wrongful detention of a dredge and its accessories, and of two launches which were a total loss. Notwithstanding the aspect given to them by the American Agency, the facts were held by this Commission to be matters relating to the contract to which the North American Dredging Company of Texas was a party.” Opinions of Commissioners, 1931, p. 220.

¹⁶ United Mexican States (El Emporio del Cafe) v. U. S. A., Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 7.

¹⁷ Under general principles, the claimant would have been required to exhaust local remedies even in regard to acts of the kind alleged, unless resort to Mexican tribunals was not permitted or wouldplainly have been useless. In the absence of Article 6, the claimant would have been required to prove the latter condition if the Commission had taken jurisdiction.

¹⁸ The Spanish text reads:

“ La empresa será siempre mexicana aún cuando todos o algunos de sus miembros fueron extranjeros y estará; sujeta exclusivamente a la jurisdicción de los Tribunales de la República Mexicana en todos los negooios cuya causa y acción tengan lugar dentro de su territorio. Ella misma y todos los extranjeros y los sucesores de éstos que tomaran parte en sus negocios, sea como accionistas, empleados o con cualquier otro carácter, serán considerados como mexicanos en todo cuanto a ella se refiera. Nunca podán alegar respecto de los títulos y negocios relacionados con la empresa, derechos de extranjería bajo cualquier pretexto que sea. Sólo tendrán los derechos y medios de hacerlos valer que las leyes de la Repiiblica conceden a los Mexicanos, y por consiguiente no podrán tener ingerencia alguna los Agentes Diplomáticos extranjeros.”

¹⁹ Decisions and Opinions of the Commissioners, p. 170.

²⁰ Loc. cit.

²¹ “ Private contractors are usually not unwilling to include clauses binding them to have recourse to local remedies in the event of non-performance by the government. But it is hardly to be supposed that this is a conscious, voluntary acceptance by the individual contractor of all the risks of losses arising under the contractual relation, including those which may be brought about by action of the government outside of its r61e asa contracting party. The chances are that the private contractor, in signing a contract containing a Calvo Clause, foresees only those types of possible loss that are commonly associated with the contractual relation in general.” Dunn, ,Protection of Nationals (1933), p. 17.Google Scholar