Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:38:15.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The End of American Consular Jurisdiction in Morocco

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Richard Young
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 1957 , pp. 402 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1957

References

1 2 Miller, Treaties of the United States 185; 4 ibid. 33.

2 1 Malloy, Treaties of the United States 1220; 6 A.J.I.L. Supp. 18 (1912).

3 2 Malloy, op. cit 2157; 1 A.J.I.L. Supp. 47 (1907).

4 Case concerning Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. the United States), [1952] I.G.J. Rep. 176; 47 A.J.I.L. 136 (1953).

5 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 2893; G. H. Stuart, The International City of Tangier 166–167 (2d ed., 1955).

6 34 Department of State Bulletin 204 (1956). This policy had been foreshadowed in the United States pleadings before the International Court.

7 Act of March 23, 1874, 18 Stat. 23, 22 U.S.C. sec. 182. The authority granted was exercised by the President in 1876 and again in 1937, when the original regime of the Mixed Courts was replaced by the transitional regime established by the Montreux Convention of that year. 2 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 516. But it may be noted that a recent precedent existed for the use of the treaty method: the Chinese-American treaty of Jan. 11, 1943, relinquishing American extraterritorial rights in China. U. S. Treaty Series, No. 984; 37 A.J.I.L. Supp. 65 (1943). This was not referred to during the hearings.

8 S.Rep. 2274, 84th Cong., 2d Sess.

9 Public Law 856, 84th Cong., 2d Sess.; 70 Stat. 773.

10 See note addressed by the American Ambassador at Rabat to the Moroccan Foreign Minister, 35 Dept. of State Bulletin 844 (1956) reprinted below, p. 466.

11 Final Declaration of the Conference, Oct. 29, 1956. T.I.A.S., No. 3680; 35 Department of State Bulletin 842 (1956) ; reprinted below, p. 460.

12 The sections of the Revised Statutes specified in the resolution correspond to 22 U.S.C. sees. 141–143, 145–174, 176–181, and 183 inclusive.

13 3 Miller, Treaties of the United States 789. In the English version of the treaty, Art. 9 reads in part: “The President of the United States may appoint Consuls to reside in the Ports of the Sultan where the principal commerce shall be carried on; which Consuls shall be the exclusive judges of all disputes or suits wherein American Citizens shall be engaged with each other. …”

14 2 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 530.

15 Hearings before the Senate Committee (committee print), April 10, 1956, p. 4.

16 3 Miller, Treaties of the United States 801.

17 R. H. Sanger, The Arabian Peninsula 191 (1954), quoting a 1913 despatch to the Department from the Consul at Muscat reviewing the business of the Consulate. Cf. Curzon, G.N.(later Lord), Persia and the Persian Question, Vol. 2, p. 443 (1892)Google Scholar: “America is the only other Power, besides Great Britain, that is represented at Muscat by a Consul; an English merchant filling that post, and presumably having nothing to do but superintend the despatch of cargoes of dates, when the gathering season comes round.”