Marie Elisabeth Boll is in 1945 in Norrköping (Zweden) geboren. Haar vader is een Nederlander, haar in 1953 overleden moeder was van geboorte Zweedse. Door haar huwelijk met een Nederlander had de moeder de Nederlandse nationaliteit verworven, maar volgens de toentertijd geldende Zweedse nationaliteitswet van 1924 had zij de Zweedse nationaliteit behouden, daar zij bij de huwelijksvoltrekking in Zweden woonde en daarna was blijven wonen. De moeder bezat dus een dubbele nationaliteit. Het kind, (Marie) Elisabeth, verkreeg met de geboorte alleen de Nederlandse nationaliteit. Ook onder de nieuwe Zweedse wet op de nationaliteit van 1950 zou Elisabeth niet de Zweedse nationaliteit hebben verkregen.

Of all the four Conventions the second Convention conforms most nearly with existing customary law and its contents are, at the same time, the most varied of them all. They comprise, in fact, all the traditional solutions to the various problems to which the regime of the high seas has, through the centuries, given rise. They almost form an extract from the many textbooks of public international law dealing with the high seas and there is hardly an element of surprise or novelty in them.

On the night of Sunday 27—Monday 28 April 1958, the curtain fell on a diplomatic performance on the Geneva scene which had lasted for nine weeks: the Conference on the Law of the Sea. Driving back to the hotel from the Palais des Nations one could not help comparing the result of this Conference held under the aegis of the United Nations with the corresponding section of its predecessor of 1930 at The Hague, organised by the League of Nations, and being struck by two parallels and two differences. The two Conferences had in common that they had both been thoroughly prepared legally, and that it proved impossible to reach any agreement on one of the fundamental questions discussed, viz. the breadth of the territorial sea. But they differed in that, as far as the law of the sea was concerned, the Geneva Conference covered a much wider field than that of The Hague as it dealt not only with the territorial sea but also with the high seas and the continental shelf, and that they drew different conclusions from their failure to reach agreement on the breadth of the territorial sea, because while the Conference of 1930 ended with no convention at all concerning this subject, its successor of 1958 adopted one in spite of the important gaps left. The Conference of 1958 was moreover attended by a much larger number of States.

A vast amount has been written, in books and articles, upon the subject of the seizure by Governments of foreign-owned property, whether the process is called Nationalization or Expropriation or by some other name. I propose, however, to confine myself mainly to the relevant law laid down by tribunals, both international and national, in dealing with the matter and to the practice of States— these two sources being the principal sources of international law, and I shall cite very few authors. Law becomes more concrete when applied to the particular facts of an actual incident, and in such circumstances it is easier to distinguish between lex lata and lex ferenda; it is only the former that I am concerned with now.

The object of this article is to consider whether the ownership of expropriated property of aliens also passes to the expropriating state if the expropriation purporting to be nationalisation is not accompanied by compensation. It deals only with property (including enterprises) located within the territory of the nationalising state and belonging to aliens. The appropriation by governmental agencies of (enemy) property during or in connection with a war will not be discussed.

1. From May 20 to June 10, 1958 a Conference of Plenipotentiaries met at Headquarters of the United Nations in New York for the purpose of concluding a convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Il est difficile d'être complètement satisfait des résultats de la onzième session de la Commission du Droit International. La cause en doit être imputée notamment aux circonstances spéciales qui rendaient impossible la discussion des points à l'ordre du jour selon le plan établi par la Commission l'année passée. En effet, la Commission s'était proposée d'en terminer avec le projet sur les relations et immunités consulaires en première lecture. Elle aurait attaché du prix à pouvoir soumettre justement ce projet à l'Assemblée générale dans un délai relativement court car il avait apparu qu'il y avait une tendance à joindre la discussion sur le projet déjà soumis relatif aux immunités diplomatiques à celui relatif au droit consulaire. Ainsi, retarder la remise du projet sur le droit consulaire pourrait avoir comme conséquence de remettre également la mise-sur-pied d'une convention sur les immunités diplomatiques. La Commission n'a pu suivre ce plan parce que le rapporteur de ce sujet, le professeur žourek (Tchécoslovaquie) était absent pendant toute la première moitié de la session. Le Gouvernement de Bulgarie l'avait désigné juge ad hoc dans l'affaire de l'incident aérien entre Israël et la Bulgarie portée devant la Cour internationale de Justice à La Haye et les délibérations en cette affaire s'étaient prolongées au delà de toute attente. La Commission se trouvait donc obligée de remettre la discussion de ce sujet jusqu'à la venue de M. Žourek, et le temps qui restait était insuffisant pour en terminer la première lecture. Vu cette situation, la Commission a commencé ses travaux par l'étude du rapport de Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice (Grande-Bretagne), qui avait été élu président de la Commission, et les interrompit au moment de là venue de M. Žourek pour aborder le sujet du droit consulaire.

The question of reservations to multilateral treaties has aroused much interest in recent years since an established procedure seems to tremble or even to collapse. Before the first world war no problem existed. Reservations to treaties were tendered either on or before signature and were permitted only if accepted by all other signatories. Several States made reservations to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, but none of them protested when the Netherlands Government did not accept them as parties until the other signatories to the conventions had agreed to their reservations. The practice of asking the consent of all the signatories proved workable in an era when multilateral treaties were rare and the attention paid to them was considerable, when furthermore the parties to a treaty had always participated in its drafting.

Après avoir énumeré les mesures législatives indonésiennes relatives à la nationalisation des entreprises néerlandaises en Indonésie, Lord McNair procède à un examen du principe du respect des droits acquis privés d'étrangers. Une étude détaillée de la jurisprudence internationale mène l'auteur à la conclusion que ce respect est un principe bien établi du droit international. L'auteur estime que le fait qu'un Etat succède à un autre Etat ne porte nullement atteinte à l'obligation de respecter les droits acquis privés d'étrangers. «Par conséquent, je ne suis pas d'avis que la République Indonésienne se trouve dans une position plus forte à l'égard des titulaires des droits acquis privés d'étrangers en raison du fait que la totalité ou la majorité de ces droits furent originellement acquis du Royaume des Pays-Bas.»

Depuis la clôture de la Huiti`me Session nous avons déjà franchi la moitié des quatre années qui, selon le Statut, doivent séparer les Sessions ordinaires de la Conférence: La Neuvième Session sera convoquée pour l'automne 1960.

More than 75,000 nationals of the Netherlands are currently residing in the Federal Republic of Germany. The courts of the Federal Republic have therefore quite often had to deal with questions bearing on succession to property belonging to Netherlands nationals and situated in their jurisdiction. Furthermore, a short article on the subject here discussed, written by this author two years ago, has not only provoked extensive academic discussion in German legal periodicals, but has also recently guided— or, as asserted by eminent authority, misguided —at least one German court to a decision on the Netherlands private international law of succession which not only is at odds with well-nigh universal legal opinion in the Netherlands but also at least seemingly at variance with a long line of Netherlands judicial decisions.

In the following pages I intend to survey the judgments of the International Court of Justice pronounced in the course of 1959.

Owing to the differing degrees of importance from the legal point of view of the individual cases dealt with, their discussion will necessarily vary in length and thoroughness.

Professor Rolin discusses the content of the Indonesian Nationalization Act and the Decrees for its implementation, and notes, inter alia, the following:

that the taking is confined to Netherlands enterprises, the implementing Decrees leaving open the possibility that it will not be restricted to property within Indonesia;

that the contemplated compensation does not represent the value of the enterprises, because it will evidently consist of only a part of the revenue from them, and that the payment of this compensation is deferred until some future date as yet unspecified.

It is also clearly indicated that the motive for the taking is “the struggle for the liberation of Western New Guinea”. According to official statements, the payment of compensation will also depend on there being a settlement satisfactory to Indonesia of the dispute over Western New Guinea. The taking is therefore an unfriendly, or even hostile act in reply to the attitude adopted by the Netherlands with regard to Western New Guinea.

Actes de la Huitième Session de la Conférence de La Haye de droit international privé (3–24 octobre 1956); XXXII + 360 pages. La Haye 1957.

Professor Verdross discusses the content of the Indonesian legislation on the Nationalization of the Netherlands Enterprises, and draws attention to pronouncements by the Indonesian Government during the parliamentary debates on the Nationalization Act from which it is evident that the payment of compensation is being used as a means of coercion in the political dispute between the Netherlands and Indonesia over New Guinea.

Since the payment of the compensation—the amount of which is in itself entirely uncertain—is being deferred to an indeterminate date in the future, while the Nationalization Act has retroactive effect from 3rd December, 1957, the measures discussed are, in the writer's opinion, to be regarded as a confiscation of alien property.

Over alien property on its territory a State has only a limited power—limited, that is, by international law. This principle, enunciated as long ago as the 18th century by Vattel, has been elaborated in the subsequent development of international law to mean that confiscation of property of aliens is under all circumstances contrary to international law (except as a penalty for grave crimes), whereas expropriations in the public interest against adequate compensation are permissible.

It transpires from the article by Dr. H. W. Baade in the Netherlands International Law Review for April 1959 (p. 174ff.), that a German Court, in determining the law governing succession to the estate of a Dutch citizen domiciled in Germany, has indeed considered as relevant circumstances which indicated a close connection between the deceased and the country in which he was resident (Landgericht Koblenz, 17 July 1958, cited on p. 182 of the above article). I believe it to be of importance therefore to emphasize once again that Netherlands jurisprudence does not tend to apply the lex domicilii as opposed to the national law of the testator, and that one must not gain the contrary impression from the three decisions of Netherlands Courts which Dr. Baade cites.

Au début de l'année, les affaires portées devant la Cour ne se trouvaient pas encore en état de pouvoir être plaidées en audiences publiques. Au cours de la seconde partie de l'année, la Cour a traité deux affaires et l'on peut constater avec satisfaction que de nouvelles instances ont été introduites devant elle.