Title to Confiscated Foreign Property and Public International Law

Abstract

In a recent well-documented article Domke has criticized this writer for not having cited a single case for a proposition contained in the writer’s book, Internationales Konfiskations- und Enteignungsrecht.

Reprisals and the Taking of Private Property

“…Such restoration is not contemplated by either Indonesia or Cuba. 46 (2) of the Geneva Red Cross Convention of 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War expressly provides that the interning State shall release them and shall cancel restrictive measures affecting their property as soon as possible after the close of hostilities. The final character of these measures has been rightly critized by Rolin In another way too the takings concerned go beyond the limits which international laws sets for peace time reprisals.…”

“…46 If a taking could constitute a permissible act of reprisals, such taking would thus lose its delictuous character. There exists no rule of public international law, which would oblige the courts of third States to recognize such titles of the taking State or its successors in title, limiting the rights of the dispossessed owners to obtain damages through diplomatic channels.…”