Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:27:34.255Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Berlin and the Quadripartite Agreement of 1971

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Günther Doeker ,
Klaus Melsheimer  and
Dieter Schröder
Günther Doeker
Affiliation:
Free University of Berlin and Brock University, St. Catharines,Ont., Canada
Klaus Melsheimer
Affiliation:
Section on Water Administration and Shipping, Senat of Berlin, formerly member of the Political Department of the Chancellery of the Senat of Berlin
Dieter Schröder
Affiliation:
Head of section in the Political Department of the Chancellery of the Senat of Berlin, Lecturer in International Relations, Free University of Berlin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The present legal status of Berlin after the conclusion on September 3, 1971 of the Quadripartite Agreement between France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States can only be understood in terms of its own historical development and the context of the international politics of the 1960s. Although any legal and political analysis of divided Germany and Berlin must take into account a period of history dating back to the 1940s, it is assumed here that the essential facts are sufficiently well known to serve as a background for the following analysis.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , January 1973 , pp. 44 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1973

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.)

References

1 Text in 66 AJIL 242 (1972). Also in 10 ILM 895 (1971) and 65 Dept. State Bull. 318 (1971).

2 For further details concerning the historical development of the legal status of Berlin and divided Germany, see Riklin, Alois, Das Berlinproblem (1964)Google Scholar and the sources and materials cited therein at 405 ff; see also Mahnke, Hans Heinrich, Der Zugang nach Berlin: Die Historische Entwicklung , Deutschland-Archiv 140 ff, and 364 ff (1972)Google Scholar.

3 See Brandt, Willy, Der Wille zum Frieden 109 (1971)Google Scholar.

4 Wewjura, B. and Lukashuk, I., International Legal Aspects of the West Berlin Problem , Int. Affairs (No. 4, April 1963)Google Scholar.

5 See Siegler, H., 1 Wdsdervereinigung und Sicherheit Deutschlands (6th ed., 1967)Google Scholar.

6 See Archiv der Gegenwart 9679, 9831 (1962).

7 See, for example. Petrenkow, J., Vber einige VolkerrechtUche Aspekte des Status von West Berlin , Deutsche Aussenpolitck 153 (No. 2, 1969)Google Scholar.

8 See Lush, C. D., The Relationship between Berlin and the Federal Republic of Germany , 14 Int. and Comp. L. Q. 742 ff, 745 (1965)Google Scholar.

9 See 19 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 377 ff (1966).

10 German version published in 20 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 1743 (1967).

11 See Neues Deutschland, Dec. 9, 1967.

12 See Neue Züricher Zeitung, Dec. 19, 1967.

13 See Neues Deutschland, Feb. 15, 1968.

14 Klimenko, B. M., Pbavo Phochoda Vebez Inostrannuju Tebritobiju (1967)Google Scholar.

15 Görner, Gunter, DDR Gewährleistet Fbiedlichen Westberlin Transit (1969)Google Scholar. (This publication is a shortened and revised edition of the author’s dissertation.)

16 Schröder, Dieter, Die Bedeutung der Drei-Staaten-These für die Rechtslage des Verkehrs von und nach Berlin , Recht in Ost und West. 104 ff. (1967)Google Scholar; ibid. Die rechtlichen Konsequenzen einer Anerkennung der “DDR” für Berlin, Recht und Politik, 117 ff. (1967); ibid. Die Bedeutung der Berliner Rechte der Alliierten für den Zugang von Deutschen nach Berlin, Recht und Politik 11 ff. (1969); Mahnke, Hans H., Das Recht des zivilen Zugangs nach Berlin , Deutschland-Archiv, 148 ff. (1969)Google Scholar.

17 5 U.S.T. 2078; T.I.A.S. 3071; 227 U.N.T.S. 279.

18 Official Gazette of the Allied Control Council in Germany, 1945 Supp No. 1, at 7.

19 The Issues in the Berlin-German Crisis, 1 Proc. of the Hammarskjöld Forum, 27–29 (1963).

20 BK/0(55)10 and BK/L(52)81 concerning extension of Federal laws, BKC/L(52)6 concerning international treaties and obligations, BCK/L(55)3 declaration on Berlin, published in von der Gablentz, O. M., Documents on the Status or Berlin 1944–1959, at 121 Google Scholar ff.

21 Art. 87, Sec. 4 Berlin Constitution of September 1, 1950. 1 Verordnungsblatt von Gross-Berlin, 433.

22 See Neues Deutschland, Oct. 19, 1955.

23 Mann, F. A., The Present Legal Status of Germany , 1 Jahrbuch für Internationales und Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht, 27/1 (1948)Google Scholar.

24 19 U.S.T. 7383; T.I.A.S. 6592; 597 U.N.T.S. 42.

25 See Görneb, supra note 15, at 104 ff

26 See Wewjura/Luxashuk, supra note 4, at 40.

27 See, inter alia, Petrenkow, supra note 7, at 153.

28 See Rshewski, , Westberlin—Ein Politisches Gebilde sui Generis 5 (1967)Google Scholar; compare Belezky, , Westberlin und Sein Platz im System der Gegenwärtigen Internationalen Beziehuncen, 33, 62, 75, 87 (1968)Google Scholar. See also Boldrew, , Völkerrechiliche Aspekte der Stellung Westberlins , Documentation der Zeit, No. 1/2, at 13 (1969)Google Scholar; ibid., Eine Frage die ihrer LSsung harrt, Neue Zett, No. 25, at 6, 8 (1970).

29 Vysotsky, , Zapadnyi Berlin i ego mesto v sisteme sovermennych mezdunarodynch Otosenij, 369–79 (1971)Google Scholar. Vysotsky describes the status of West Berlin as follows: “peculiar governmental-political organism” or “separate administrative-territorial entity (292), which is furthermore a “subject of international law in statu nascendi with a restricted dispositing capacity” (372). Despite the signature of the Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin, Vysotsky did not feel urged to change his position. See Vazny rubez v bor’be za razrjadku naprijazennosti, mesdunarodnaja zizn’, 15 ff. (1971).

30 Boldyrew, Eine Frage, supra note 28, at 6; Rshewski, supra note 28, at 30–34.

31 Ibid., 7–30; Boldyrew Völkerrechtliche Aspekte . . . , supra note 28, at 3–6. A good summary of the Soviet point of view is given in The Issues in the Berlin-German Crisis, supra note 19, at 24–27.

32 The Soviet note of Nov. 27, 1958 is published in Pravda, Nov, 28, 1958.

33 See, inter alia, Rshweski and Boldyrew, supra note 28 at 76 and 409, respectively.

34 See Tripartite Agreement on the Exercise of Retained Rights in Germany, signed Oct. 23, 1955. 6 U.S.T. 5703; T.I.A.S. 3427 and Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of Sept. 20, 1955 in Pravda, Sept. 21, 1944.

35 See 1970 Bulletin des Presse- und Informationsamtes der Bundesregierung, 1061.

36 Ibid., 1062.

37 See Pravda, Jan. 17, 1971.

38 See The Berlin Settlement, Press and Information Office of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, 159 (1972).

39 See the German weekly Quick (NO. 32, Aug. 4, 1971).

40 English text In 11 ILM 734 (1972).

41 See supra note 1.

42 See i.e. Vertrag zwlschen der DDR und der UdSSR zur Regelung von Fragen der doppelten Staatsbiirgerschaft vom 11 April 1969, Gesetzblatt der DDR, 107 ff, extended to East Berlin on Oct. 22, 1969 (Verordnungsblatt fur Gross-Berlin, 149 (1969)).

43 Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt von Berlin.

44 Arrangement between the Government of the GDR and the Senate on Facilitating and Improving the Traffic of Travellers and Visitors, done at Berlin Dec. 20, 1971. 11 ILM 11 (1972).

45 Text in 66 AJIL 248 (1972).

46 Ibid., 250.

47 The so-called Bahr-Kohl agreement of Dec. 17, 1971. 11 ILM 5 (1972).

48 The so-called Muller-Kohrt agreement of Dec. 20,1971. Ibid., 11.

49 E.g. Art. 1, Sec. 2, Convention and Statute on Freedom of Transit of April 20, 1921. 7 L.N.T.S. 11; Art. V, Sec. 1, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of Oct. 30, 1947, T.I.A.S. 1700; 55 U.N.T.S. 194.

50 See supra note 24.

51 See Allied documents, CONL/P(45)63; CONL/M(45)13; CORC/P(46)84; DAIR/ P(45)71; DAIR/M(46)11; DOCS/SEC(47)33, published by the Department of State Sept. 8, 1981.

52 Verträge der Bundesrepublek Deutschland, Ser. A, Bd. 18, No. 207 at 3. Text also in 11 ILM 5 (1972) and The Berlin Settlement, supra note 38 at 39.

53 Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets, done at Geneva, Jan. 15, 1959. 348 U.N.T.S. 13.

54 See Schröder, Dieter, Der Freee Zugang der Binnenstaaten zum Meer 28 (1966)Google Scholar.

55 T. Mithovic, The Berlin Agreement, 12 Rev. of Int. Affairs, 7, 11.

56 The Russian word “svjazy” had more the sense of “communications” than of “ties.” So in Russian “ministerstvo svjazi” means the ministry of post and telecommunications.

57 See supra note 44.

58 11 ILM 14 (1972).

59 See BKL/L(71)2 and BKL/L(71)3 in The Berlin Settlement supra note 38 at 72.

60 For the FRG, see Arts. II and VI Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the FRG, signed at Paris, Oct. 23, 1954. 6 U.S.T. 4117; T.I.A.S. 3425; 331 U.N.T.S. 253. For the GDR, see Declaration of the Soviet Government on the Granting of Sovereignty to the GDR, in Pravda, March 16, 1954 and Moscow Treaty of Sept. 20, 1955 on the relations between the USSR and the GDR, in Pravda Sept. 21, 1955.