The U.S. and International Claims and Compensation Bodies

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511819759.010

9 - The U.S. and International Claims and Compensation Bodies

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

John R. Crook

Edited by

Cesare P. R. Romano

Show author details

Cesare P. R. Romano: Affiliation:
Loyola Marymount University, California

Book contents

Get access

Summary

From its earliest days, the United States has often pursued its policy goals through vigorous engagement in international institutions created to resolve large numbers of claims on the basis of law. The 1794 Jay Treaty between the fledgling United States and the United Kingdom is perhaps best remembered for creating the boundary commission that resolved the disputed St. Croix River Boundary, but it also created two other commissions to address large numbers of legal claims by British and U.S. citizens. The first, which addressed ship seizure claims, succeeded. The second, dealing with colonial-era American debts, failed, for reasons that students of modern dispute settlement processes will find instructive.

Throughout the latter decades of the nineteenth century and the early decades of the twentieth, the United States was a frequent participant in mixed claims commission with its American neighbors. It also participated in claims commissions with Germany, Austria, and Hungary that addressed extensive claims stemming from World War I. Then, however, such claims commissions fell out of fashion. Their work often took years, and some commissions failed to complete their dockets. With a few limited exceptions, international claims processes handling large numbers of claims did not figure in U.S. legal policy or practice for many years after World War II.

This chapter sketches three cases in which these processes were revived and effectively used between 1980 and 2000.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Sword and the Scales
The United States and International Courts and Tribunals
, pp. 297 - 321

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819759.010 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bederman, David J., “Historic Analogues of the UN Compensation Commission,” in The United Nations Compensation Commission: Thirteenth Sokol Colloquium (Lillich, Richard B., ed., Irvington, N.Y., Transnational Publishers, 1995), 257Google Scholar

Bederman, David J., The United Nations Compensation Commission and the Tradition of International Claims Settlement” 27 N.Y.U.J. Int'l L. & Pol. (1994), lGoogle Scholar

Crook, John R., “Mass Claims Processes: Lessons Learned over Twenty-Five Years,” in Redressing Injuries through Mass Claims Processes: Innovative Responses to Unique Challenges (Int'l Bureau, Permanent Court of Arbitration, ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006), 41–42Google Scholar

Hudson, Manley O., International Tribunals (Washington, D.C., Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Brookings Institution, 1944), 3Google Scholar

Lillich, Richard B., The Jay Treaty Commissions, 38 St. John's L. Rev. (1963), 38Google Scholar

Ralston, Jackson H., International Arbitration from Athens to Locarno (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1929), 191–93Google Scholar

Feller, A. H., The Mexican Claims Commissions, 1923–34 (New York, Macmillan, 1935)Google Scholar

Hunt, Bert L., Report of the Agent for the United States. American and Panamanian General Claims Arbitration under the Conventions between the United States and Panama of July 28, 1926, and December 17, 1932 (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1934)Google Scholar

Carswell, Robert and Davis, Richard J., “The Economic and Financial Pressures: Freeze and Sanctions,” in American Hostages in Iran: The Conduct of a Crisis (Christopher, Warren et al., eds., New Haven, Yale University Press, 1985), 173Google Scholar

Lowenfeld, Andreas F. et al., Revolutionary Days: The Iran Hostage Crisis and The Hague Claims Tribunal: A Look Back (Huntington, N.Y., Juris Publishing, 1999)Google Scholar

The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal and the Process of International Claims Resolution (Caron, David R. and Crook, John R., eds., Ardsley, N.Y., Transnational Publishers, 2000), 477

Bourne, Peter G., Jimmy Carter (New York, Scribner, 1997)Google Scholar

Koob, Kathryn, Guest of the Revolution (Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982)Google Scholar

Sick, Gary, All Fall Down: America's Tragic Encounter with Iran (New York, Random House, 1985)Google Scholar

Crawford, James, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002), 121–22Google Scholar

Hertz, Michael F., “The Hostage Crisis and Domestic Litigation: An Overview,” The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal 1981–1983: Seventh Sokol Colloquium (Lillich, Richard B., ed., Ardsley-on-Hudson, N.Y., Transnational Publishers, 1984) 136Google Scholar

Caron, David D. et al., The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006), 995CrossRef Google Scholar

Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2000 (Cummins, Sally J. and Stewart, David P., eds., Washington, D.C., International Law Institute, 2001) 445

Eizenstat, Stuart E., Imperfect Justice (New York, Public Affairs, 2003)Google Scholar

Murphy, Sean D., United States Practice In International Law. Volume 1: 1999–2001 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002), 153–57Google Scholar

Buergenthal, Thomas, Arbitrating Entitlement to Dormant Bank Accounts, 15 ICSID Rev. – For. Investment L. J. 301 (2000)Google Scholar

Reed, Lucy, “Arbitration Principles in Resolving Holocaust Bank Claims,” in Institutional and Procedural Aspects of Mass Claims Settlement Systems (Int'l Bureau, Permanent Court of Arbitration, ed., The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2000) 59Google Scholar

Linton, Suzannah, Righting a Wrong or Prolonging the Agony? The Work of the Claims Resolution Tribunal for Dormant Accounts in Switzerland, 12 Leiden J. Int'l L. 373, 388 (1999)Google Scholar

Glaberson, William, “For Betrayal by Bank and Nazis, $21 Million,” New York Times, Apr. 14, 2005, A1Google Scholar

Pearson, Ryan, “12 Heirs of Nazi Victims Win Swiss Bank Claim,” Washington Post, Apr. 15, 2005, A5Google Scholar

Bayzler, Michael J. and Fitzgerald, Amber L., Trading with the Enemy: Holocaust Restitution, the United States Government, and American Industry, 28 Brook. J. Int'l L. 697–99 (2003)Google Scholar

Urbina, Ian, “Austria Offers Amends to Nazi-era Survivors,” Int'l Herald Tribune, Oct. 17, 2003, 10Google Scholar

Boustany, Nora, “For Holocaust Families, Restitution and Reconnection,” Washington Post, Nov. 24, 2004, A1Google Scholar

Crook, John R., The UN Compensation Commission: What Now?5 Int'l L.- For. du Droit Int'l279–80 (2003)Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.