Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:15:22.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decision of the German Supreme Court on Termination of Treaties of the German States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2021

Stefan Riesenfeld
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Current Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , October 1937 , pp. 720 - 725
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1937 

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

* Note to the decision of the German Supreme Court of August 13, 1936, printed infra, p. 739.

1 United States Treaty Series, No. 836; this JOURNAL, Supp., Vol. 25 (1931), p. 145.

2 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 658; Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1910–1923, Vol. III, p. 2596; this JOURNAL, Supp., Vol. 16 (1922), p. 10.

3 Cf. the letter of the Department of State, quoted in Goos v. Brocks (1929), 117 Neb. 750 at 755; The Sophie Riekmers (1930), 45 P. (2d) 413; Flensburger Dampfercompagnie v. United States (1932), 59 P.(2d) 446, this JOUBNAL, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 618.

4 Cf. the decisions supra, note 3.

5 See Kraus, Gegenwartiger und kunftiger Stand des Auslieferungsrechts, Verhandhmgen des 84 Deutschen JuristerUages zu Koln (1927), Vol. 2, p. 302 ff., at p. 303; Reisner, Die Voraussetzungen der Auslieferung und das AusUeferungsverfahren nach Erlass des Auslieferungsgesetzes (1932), p. 13.

6 Meyer, Lehrbuch des Deutschen Staatsrechts (7th ed. by Anschiitz, 1919), p. 263.

7 Laband, Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reiches (5th ed. 1911), Vol. 2, p. 169, note

8 Bornhak, Preussisches Staatsrecht (2d ed. 1914), Vol. 3, p.

9 Mettgenberg, Gegenwartiger Stand und kunftige Ausgestaltung des Auslieferungsrechts, Verhandlungen des 84 Deutschen Juristentages zu Kdln (1927), Vol. 1, p. 30 ff., at p.

10 It is the prevailing opinion that the German States under the Constitution of 1871 possessed international legal personality, a view which is adopted, for instance, also by Hyde, International Law Chiefly As Interpreted and Applied by the United States (1922), Vol. 1, pp. 46,47. Professor Kunz, who, in his book Die Staatenverbindungen, Handbuch des Vdlkerrechts, Vol. 2, pt. 4 (1929), denies that the member states in a true federal state possess international legal personality (p. 537 ff.), admits that some member states of the German Empire under the Constitution of 1871 were endowed with "partial international legal personality," because they possessed special (international) rights not on the basis of the constitution but on the basis of special treaties concluded with the North German Federation before the formation of the Empire. But he denies that Prussia possessed such partial international legal personality, and states that the power of the member states to enter into treaties with foreign countries is no reason for considering them as international persons; for insofar they exercise only international powers of the federal state delegated to them by the Constitution (op. cit., p. 676 ff., particularly pp. 679 and 664). It is impossible to criticize Kunz's view within the scope of this note.

11 Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1885, p. 443 (letter of German Ambassador von Alvensleben to the American Secretary of State).

12 (Circuit Court, D. New Jersey 1890), 43 Fed. 17; Scott, The Treaties of 1785,1799 and 1828 between the United States and Prussia (Carnegie Endowment, 1918), p. 100.

13 Letter of Ambassador Gerard to the Secretary of State, Scott, op. tit., p. 165.

14 (1902), 184 U. S. 270, at 283; Scott, op. eit., p. 109.

15 21 Ops. Attys. Gen. 80; Scott, op. eit., p. 142. This letter shows clearly the difficulty involved: Why is the Reich bound? Is it bound by virtue of the rules of state succession or by virtue of an implied assumption of the treaty rights and duties of the member states? This latter view of an implied assumption is sometimes taken by German writers. Cf. Liszt, Das Völkerrecht (12th ed. by Fleischmann, 1925), p. 275; v. Rogister, Gibt es stillschweigenden Eintritt in Staatsverträge? (1903); Fleischmann, Völkerrechtsquellen (1905), pp. 69, 81, 171, 377 (index sub voce Staatsverträge).

16 Constitution of 1919, Art. 78, par. 2.

17 Constitution of 1919, Art. 6, nr. 3. “In 1929 Germany passed an extradition law.

18 In 1929 Germany passed an extradition law.

19 Anschütz, Die Verfassung des Deutschen Reichs (4th ed. 1933), p. 418

20 Cf. Pohl, “Die Zuständigkeitsverteilung zwischen Reich und Ländern im Awlieferungswesen,” 14 Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht (1928), p. 1 ff., at p. 22; Reisner, op. tit., p. 13.

21 Art. 44, par. 1, of the German extradition law. The Reich could, however, delegate its powers to the German States, Art. 44, par. 2. This was done to a great extent by a statute of 1930. Cf. Reisner, op. tit., pp. 113, 114, note 2. Before the passage of the extradition law there was a controversy whether the Reich or the states had to pass upon the request by a foreign country. The prevailing opinion was that it was the federal government which had the final decision. Cf. Pohl, op. cit.; Anschütz, op. tit., p. 76.

22 The court relied on a citation of Liszt, op. tit., p. 275. It is interesting to note that this writer, after stating the principle that consolidation of a federal state into a unitarian state terminates the treaties of the member states, observes explicitly that in history many unitarian states have assumed the treaties of the principal member states.

23 Cf. Bernard, Traité théorique et pratique de I’extradition (1890), Vol. 2, p. 529; Diena, “Des rtclamations de Vexlradi en presence de I’autoriti judieiaire de I’Hat auquel il a iti livri,” 12 Revue gtrUrale de droit international public (1905), p. 516 ff. The Institute of International Law, in its session at Oxford (1880), adopted a resolution giving the extradited defendant the right to assert the irregularity of the conditions under which the extradition was accorded (Annuaire de I’Institut, Vol. 5, p. 130), but in its session at Paris (1894), it restricted this right to the effect that the defendant could avail himself only of the provisions of the extradition treaties and the extradition law of the requesting state and of special conditions imposed upon the extradition by the requested state (Annuaire, Vol. 13, p. 335).

24 See Moore, A Treatise on Extradition and Interstate Rendition (1891), Vol. 1, pp. 301, 234, note 1; Diena, loc. eit., p. 518, note 2; Bernard, op. cit., p. 528; Lammasch, “Les droits de Vexlradi dans le pays requfrant,” 21 Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1889), p. 578.

25 French extradition law, March 10, 1927, Art. 23: “L’extradition obtenue par le Gouvernement francais est nulle, si elle est intervenue en dehors des cas prévus par la présente loi.” This does not cover treaty provisions. Cf. Donnedieu de Vabres, Les principes modernes du droit penal international, p. 292. Mr. Travers maintains that a violation of the substantive foreign law can be asserted. L’entr’aide répressive Internationale et la loifrancaise du 10 mars 1927 (1928), p. 325; but the prevailing view is contra. Cf. Donnedieu de Vabres, op. cit., p. 291.