Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:35:51.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

General Principles of Law as Applied by the Conciliation Commissions Established Under the Peace Treaty with Italy of 1947

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern
Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern*
Affiliation:
University of the Soar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The present study is intended to be a modest contribution to Schlesinger’s research project concerning the “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.” At the same time it tends to comply with the voeu recommended by Jenks to the Institut de Droit International concerning the desirability of better information on the decisions of international arbitral tribunals. It is the aim of the present study to trace all explicit or implied references to these “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations” which may be found in the hitherto published decisions of the Conciliation Commissions established under Article 83 of the Peace Treaty with Italy of February 10, 1947. These Commissions consist of one member appointed by each of the states concerned. If these two members fail to agree, they draft a “statement of disagreement,” whereupon a third member,5 citizen of a third state, is added to the Commission, which shall then decide the case concerned by a majority vote.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , October 1959 , pp. 853 - 872
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1959

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 On this project, see Sehlesinger, , “Research on the General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations,” 51 A.J.I.L. 734-753 (1957).Google Scholar

2 47 Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International 221 (1957, I ).

3 The decisions of the Franco-Italian Conciliation Commission have been published in” Recueil des Décisions de la Commission de Conciliation Franco-Italienne institutée en exécution de l'art. 83 du Traité de Paix avec l'ltalie publié sous les auspices de la Représentation françhise à la Commission de Conciliation Franco-Italienne” (hereafter cited as “Becueil“). Selected decisions of the other Commissions have been published. This writer has had access to the texts of all decisions of the U.S.-Italian, and Netherlands- Italian Commissions. However, the unpublished decisions do not contain anything of importance in respect to the present researches. There is comparatively little literature on the work of these Commissions: Anonymous, “La Commission de Conciliation Franco-Italienne,” Affaires Btrangères, January, 1951, No. 3; Bolla, “Quelques considérations sur les Commissions de Conciliation prévues par 1'article 83 du Traié de paix avec l'ltalie,” Symbolae Verzijl 67-87 (1958); Bos, “The French-Italian Conciliation Commission,” 22 Acta Scandinavica juris gentium 132 (1952); Maury, “L'Arrêt Nottebohm et la Condition de la Nationalité Effective,” 23 Zeitschrift für ausl. u. internat. Privatrecht, Festgabe für A. N. Makarov 515 f. (1958) ; Seidl- Hohenveldern, “ Schiedsgerichtliche Entscheidungen zu vermögensrechtlichen Fragen des italienischen Friedensvertrages,” Jur. Blätter 1956, pp. 252-256, 277-281, 307-310; Seidl-Hohenveldern, Neue Schiedssprüche zur Konfiskation feindlichen Privateigentums, Bccht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 45-47 (1956); Soubeyrol, “The international interpretation of treaties and the consideration of the intention of the parties,'’ 85 Clunet687 ff. (1958); Vignes, “La Commission de Conciliation Franco-Italienne,” 1955 Annuaire François de Droit International 212 f.; Vignes, “L'Affaire Florence Mergé,” 1956 ibid. 430, and a mimeographed thesis by Grenier (Bordeaux, 1958).

4 Gazetta Ufficiale, Dec. 24, 1947; 42 A.J.I.L. Supp. 47 f. (1948).

5 The Franco-Italian Commission always chose as its third member the former President of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, Dr. h.c. Plinio BoUa. The other Commissions varied in the choice of their third members.

6 Decisions rendered without the participation of a third member will be marked by a + and those reached by a majority decision by a °.

7 On the rôle of real Conciliation Commissions, of. Wehberg, “Die Vergleichskommissionen im modernen Völkerrecht,” in 19 Zeitschrift f. ausl. öff. Recht u. Völkerrecht, Festgabe für Alexander N. Makarov 551 f. (1958). Bolla, loc. cit. 76, shares our view that the ‘ ‘ Conciliation Commissions'’ established under the Peace Treaty with Italy are real tribunals, even in cases where a decision is rendered only by two members.

8 However, the contentions of the parties may also in such cases contain references to ‘ ‘ general principles.'’ Cf. note 109 below.

9 Anglo-Italian Conciliation Commission, Dec, May 8, 1954, in Ee Competence of Conciliation Commission, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 872; “an international arbitral body,” Italian-TJ. S. Conciliation Commission, Dec. No. 11, June 25, 1952+ (Amabile Claim), ibid. 843, 850; “an international tribunal,” Franco-Italian Conciliation Commission Dec. No. 4, Nov. 13, 1948,+ 8.A.I.M.I. Claim, 1 Recueil 38, 40; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 471.

10 I.e., the Italian Peace Treaty and its Annexes and the Commission's own Rules of Procedure. Only the Rules of Procedure of the Franco-Italian Conciliation Commission are published in full (1 Recueil 25 f.). By various exchanges of notes other problems raised by the Peace Treaty or by these notes were likewise submitted to the Commissions. Bolla, loc. cit. 84, thinks that the three members of the FrancoJtalian Commission in some of these cases did not act as the Commission but as an independent arbitral body appointed ad hoc.

11 As for the facts of the decisions concerned and further details, cf. the author's article in Diritto Internazionale, 1959, pp. 227-259.

12 Dec. No. 163, Oct. 9, 1953, Frontier (Local Authorities) Award, 4 Recueil 213, 233 f.; 1953 Int. Law Sep. 63, 71.

13 Dec. No. 125, March 1, 1952,” I.V.E.M. Claim (No. 1), 4 Recueil 29, 59.

14 Dec. No. 95, March 8, 1951,” Pertusola Claim, 3 Recueil 67, 79; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414 (our translation).

15 Dec. No. 13, Jan. 21, 1949 + Guillemot-Jacquemin, 1 Recueil 47, 50; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 403 (our translation).

16 Dec. No. 125, March 1, 1952,” I.V.E.M. Claim (No. 1), 4 Recueil 29, 49.

17 Ibid. 52.

18 Dee. No. 85, Sept. 18, 1950,” Ottoz Claim, 3 Recueil 22, 32; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 435.

19 Ibid., 3 Recueil 34-35.

20 Dec. No. 152, March 10, 1953, Sociéte’ Nationale des Chemins de Fer Frangais Claim,” 4 Recueil 152, 159; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 481, 485 f.

21 Dec. No. 125, March 1, 1952,° I.V.E.M. Claim (No. 1), 4 Recueil 29, 55.

22 Anglo-Italian Conciliation Commission, Dec, Dee. 11, 1954, Gassner Claim (The M.Y.Gerry), 1955 Int. Law Rep. 972, 974.

23 Dee. No. 164, Nov. 21, 1953,” Collas et Michel Claim, 4 Recueil 277, 280; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 628.

24 Dec. No. 125, March 1, 1952,° I.V.E.M. Claim (No. 1), 4 Recueil 29, 57-61.

25 Dec. No. 164, Nov. 21, 1953,° Collas et Michel Claim, 4 Recueil l 277, 280; 1953 Int. Law Eep. 628, and Dec. No. 112, Oct. 31, 1951,+ Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français Claim, 3 Eeeueil 153, 155 (our translation); 1953 Int. Law Eep. 481, 486. This French contention was practically accepted by the Commission in its Dec. No. 152, March 10, 1953,° concerning the same case, 4 Recueil l 152, 161; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 481.

26 Dec. No. 169, March 16, 1954,+ Dame Garnet, Veuve Vlasto Claim, 5 Recueil l 17, 26.

27 Dee. No. 186, May 5, 1955,+ Ineis Claim, 5 Recueil l 200, 203.

28 French dissenting opinion attached to the Pertusola Claim, Dec. No. 95, March .8, 1951,° 3 Recueil 67, 93, and to Dec. No. 136, June 25, 1952,° In re Rizzo (No. 1), 4 Recueil 82, 86, 101; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 478.

29 In re Rizzo (No. 1),° 4 Recueil l 82, 88, 9 1 ; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 478, 481; Pertusola Claim,” 3 Recueil 67, 87; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414, 420.

30 Dec. No. 55, June 10, 1955, Merge” Claim, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 443, 448; digested in 50 A.J.I.L. 154 (1956).

31 Dec, May 8, 1954, in re Competence of Conciliation Commission, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 867, 871.

32 In re Rizzo (No. 1), 4 Recueil 82, 91; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 478, 481.

33 Franco - Italian Commission, Dec. No. 95, March 8, 1951,” Pertusola Claim, 3 Recueil l 67, 75 ; 1951 Int . L aw Rep. 414, 415 ; Anglo-Italian Commission, May 8, 1954, in re Competence of Conciliation Commission, 1955 I n t . Law Rep. 867, 870 f.; Italian- U. S. Commission, Dec. No. 18, Oct. 22, 1953,” Armstrong Cork Company Claim, 1955 I n t . Law Rep. 945, 950. Cf., however, the following passage from Italian-U. S. Commission Dec. No. 5, March 4, 1952,+ Carnelli Claim, 1955 Int . Law Rep. 340, 345: “ The Agent of the United States Government has cited certain cases decided by international and Italian tribunals which it is not deemed necessary to discuss, inasmuch as those cases do -not deal with an interpretation of the Treaty of Peace with Italy and inasmuch as the Commission has been guided in its decision of this point by the clear language of the Treaty itself.” Case digested in 50 A.J.I.L. 153 (1956).

34 3 Recueil 67, 93, and 1955 Int. Law Rep. 870 (cf. note 33 above), as well as Dec. No. 78, Oct. 2, 1950/ 2 Recueil 100, 105, Pertusola Claim.

35 Dec. No. 95, March 8, 1951,” Pertusola Claim, 3 Recueil 67, 87; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414, 419. To the same effect Dec. No. 136, June 25, 1952,° In re Rizzo (No. 1), 4 Recueil 82, 91; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 478, 481.

36 Italian-U. 8. Commission, Dec. No. 5, March 4, 1952,+ Carnelli Claim, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 340, 343.

37 In re Rizzo (No. 1),° 4 Recueil 82, 91; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 478, 481; Pertusola Claim, 3 Recueil l 67, 87; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414, 420.

38 Dee. No. 107, Sept. 15, 1951, Due de Guise Claim, 3 Recueil 119, 127 f.; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 423, 426.

39 Italian-U. S. Commission, Dec. No. 5, March 4, 1952,+ Carnelli Claim, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 340, 343.

40 Pertusola Claim,0 3 Recueil 67, 74 f.; 1951 Int. Law Eep. 414, 415.

41 Dec. No. 201, March 16, 1956,” In re Interpretation of Art. 78, par. 7, of the Peace Treaty, 5 Recueil 296, 321, quoting Sir H. Lauterpacht in 1950 Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International (I).

42 Pertusola0 Claim, 3 Recueil 67, 77; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414, 417.

43 Decision cited note 41 above.

44 Ibid. and also Dec. No. 136, In re Rizzo (No. 1),° 4 Recueil 82, 88; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 478.

45 Anglo-Italian Commission, Dec, May 8, 1954, 1955 Int. Law Eep. 867, 872, stressing that “the application of this principle is found in all jurisprudence established by the Permanent Court of International Justice.'’ In the Pertusola ° Decision, 3 Recueil 67, 83, 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414, 419, the Franco-ItalianCommission quotes to the same effect 1,2 C. de leg. 1, 14: “Scire leges non est verba earum tenere sed vim . t potestatem.” Dec. No. 82, Dec. 1, 1950, Piedmont Silk Weaving Company's ClaiE), 3 Recueil 5, 16; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 427.

46 Pertusola0 Claim, 3 Recueil 67, 78; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414, 417.

47 Pertusola ? Claim, 3 Recueil 67, 76; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414, 416.

48 Idem ° 3 Recueil 67, 76; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414, 417.

49 B In re Competence of Conciliation Commission (note 45 above), 1955 Int. Law Rep. 867, 874.

50 Dec. No. 201,° March 16, 1956, 5 Recueil 296, 305, quoting Sir H. Lauterpacht (of. note 41 above) and 1 Rousseau, Principes Generaux du Droit International Public, No. 436; Pertusola ° Claim, 3 Recueil 67, 83; 1951 Int. Law Bep. 414, 419, quoting 1,24 D 1, 3: “Incivile est nisi tota lege perspecta una aliqua particula eius proposita, indicate vel respondere“; idem, 3 Recueil 67, 75, 78; 1951 Int. Law Bep. 414, 416 and 418.

51 5 Eecueil 305; of. note 50 above.

52 Dec. No. 163, Oct. 9, 1953, Frontier (Local Authorities) Award, 4 Recueil 213, 232; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 63, 69.

53 Dec. No. 136, In re Bizzo (No. 1),° 4 Recueil 82, 88, 93; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 478 (our translation).

54 Dec. No. 82, Dec. 1, 1950, Piedmont Silk Weaving Company's Claim, 3 Recueil 5, 13; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 427 (our translation).

55 Dec. No. 32, Aug. 29, 1949, In re Italian Special Capital Levy Duties, 1 Recueil 95, 99; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 406 (our translation) ; Dec. No. 82, Dec. 1, 1950, Piedmont Silk- Weaving Company's Claim, 3 Recueil 5, 16; 1951 Int. Law Bep. 427; Dec. No. 152, Société Nationale des Chemins de Per Français Claim,0 March 10, 1953, 4 Recueil 152, 164; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 481, 490; Dec. No. 201,” March 16, 1956, 5 Eecueil 296, 321.

56 Pertusola Claim,” 3 Recueil 67, 90; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414, 422.

57 D e c . No. 163, Oct. 9, 1953, Frontier (Local Authorities) Award, 4 Recueil 213, 238; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 63, 75.

58 Anglo-Italian Commission, May 8, 1954, In re Competence of Conciliation Commission, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 867, 871.

59 Italian-TJ. S. Commission, Dec. No. 55, June 10, 1955, Merge Claim, 1955 Int. Law- Rep. 443, 447; Dec. No. 78,+ Oct. 2, 1950, 2 Recueil 100, 105 (French contention).

60 Anglo-Italian Commission, May 8, 1954, In re Competence of Conciliation Commission, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 867, 874.

61 Cf. notes 29, 32 and 37.

62 Pertusola ° Claim, 3 Recueil 67, 87; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414, 420.

63 Dec. No. 191, Sept. 15, 1955,” Agache Claim, 5 Recueil 225, 230; 1955 Int. Law Rep. 626, 629, and Dec. No. 201, March 16, 1956,° 5 Recueil 296, 319; Dec. In re Italian Special Capital Levy Duties, 1 Recueil 95, 100; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 406, 409, and in the Italian-TJ. S. Commission, Dec. No. 27 of Dec. 6, 1954,° Shafer Claim, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 959, 962, 50 A.J.I.L. 152 (1956), and in Dec. No. 18, Oct. 22, 1953,” Armstrong Cork Company Claim, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 945, 951, 50 A.J.I.L. 151 (1956). Incidentally these two decisions and the Agache decision show that this method also may lead to conflicting interpretations.

64 In re Rizzo (No. 1),° 4 Recueil 82, 88; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 478 (our translation); Dec. No. 201,” 5 Recueil 296, 324; Pertusola Claim,0 3 Recueil 67, 90; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414, 422.

65 In re Italian Special Capital Levy Duties, 1 Recueil 95, 100; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 406, 409.

66 in re Rizzo (No. 1),° 4 Recueil 82, 93; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 478, 482.

67 Pertusola Claim,” 3 Recueil 67, 8 1 ; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414, 418.

68 Dec. No. 201,” 5 Recueil 296, 309.

69 Ibid. 296, 313.

70 Dec. No. 33, Aug. 29, 1949, Guillemot-Jacquemin Claim (No. 2), 1 Recueil 105, 112; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 403, 405; Dec. No. 171, July 6, 1954, I n re Rizzo (No. 2),5 Recueil 57, 80; 1955 Int. Law Rep. 500.

71 Cf. text at note 102 below.

72 i n re Rizzo (No. 2 ) , 5 Recueil 57, 80.

73 Dec. No. 201,” 5 Recueil 296, 302.

74 Italian-U. 8. Commission, Dec. No. 55, June 10, 1955, Mergé Claim, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 443, 447; 50 A.J.I.L. 154 (1956).

75 Monteflore Claim, 5 Recueil 260, 272; 1955 Int. Law Rep. 840, 842 f.

76 Dec. No. 201,” 5 Recueil 296, 300, 304; In re Rizzo » (No. 1), 4 Recueil 82, 86, 92; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 478, 481.

77 Ottoz Claim,0 3 Recueil 22, 32; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 435 (our translation).

78 Frontier (Local Authorities) Award, 4 Recueil 213, 232; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 63, 70.

79 In re Rizzo ° (No. 1), 4 Recueil 82, 92; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 435 (our translation).

80 Pertusola Claim,0 3 Recueil 67, 90; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414, 422, quoted in the Italian Dissenting Opinion to Dee. No. 144,” Jan. 17, 1953, Mossé Claim, 4 Rexueil 117, 132; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 217; Italian-U. S. Commission, Dec. No. 18, Oct. 22, 1953,° Armstrong Cork Company Claim, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 945, 953.

81 In re Rizzo (No. 1),° 4 Recueil 82, 88; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 478.

82 Idem, 4L Recueil 82, 92; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 478, 482.

83 Pertusola Claim,” 3 Recueil 67, 89; 1951 Int. Law. Rep. 414, 421 f.

84 The decision cited at note 58 above rightly concludes, on the strength of a reference to Bluhdorn, “Le fonetionnement et la jurisprudence des Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes,” in 41 Hague Academy Recueil des Cours 190 (1932,III) , that “this excludes the application of these rules to the disputes themselves.“

85 Anglo-Italian Commission, May 8, 1954, Re Competence of Conciliation Commission, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 867, 873; Dec. No. 186, May 5, 1955,+ Incis Claim, 5 Recueil 200, 203, Italian contention.

86 In re Competence of Conciliation Commission, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 867, 873.

87 Dec. No. 201,° March 16, 1956, 5 Recueil 296, 325; Dec. No. 176,+ July 1, 1954, 5 Recueil 120, 121; Dec. No. 32, Aug. 29, 1949, In re Italian Special Capital Levy Duties, 1 Recueil 95, 104; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 406.

88 Of. note 75 above.

89 Dec. No. 169, March 16, 1954,+ Dame Garnet, Veuve Vlasto Claim, 5 Recueil 17, 27, Italian contention. The case was subsequently settled out of court.

90 Dec. No. 192, Sept. 15, 1955, Michelin Italiana Claim, 5 Becueil 232, 239; 1955 Int. Law Rep. 876, 879 f.

91 Dec. No. III , Oct. 31, 1951,+ Mossé Claim, 3 Recueil 146, 151.

92 Piedmont Silk Weaving Company's Claim, 3 Recueil 5, 9; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 427 (our translation).

93 Dec. No. 106, Sept. 28, 1951,+ Simone Reverand Claim, 3 Recueil 115, 117 f.

94 Dec. No. 67, July 19, 1950,+ Dame Bracet née Marguerite Flori Claim, 2 Recueil 78, 80.

95 Dee. No. 25, May 25, 1949,+ Viacardi Claim, 1 Recueil 76, 77.

96 ltalian-U. S. Commission, Dec. No. 11, June 25, 1952,+ Amabile Claim, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 843, 849; digested in 50 A.J.I.L. 158 (1956).

97 1955 Int. Law Rep. 850.

98 Ibid. 851; Italian-XT. S. Commission, Dec. No. 15, April 10, 1953,+ Steinway Claim, ibid. 858, 862.

99 Amabile Claim,* ibid. 843, 852.

100 Dec. No. 183, March 7, 1955,” I.V.E.M. Claim (No. 2), 5 Recueil 153, 174; 1955 Int. Law Rep. 875 (our translation).

101 Italian dissenting opinion to Dee. No. 170, July 5, 1954,° Ousset Claim, 5 Recueil 36, 55; 1955 Int. Law Eep. 312 (our translation).

102 Note 100 above.

103 I.V.E.M. Claim (No. 2),° 5 Recueil 153, 177; 1955 Int. Law Rep. 875; Dec. No. 162, Nov. 20, 1953, Due de Guise Claim (No. 2), 4 Recueil 200, 209.

104 5 Recueil 36, 55; 1955 Int. Law Rep. 312 (our translation). The majority, however, held that the expert had acted within his sphere of competence.

105 Italian-TJ. S. Commission, Dec. No. 29, Dec. 6, 1954, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 307, 310; digested in 50 A.J.I.L. 152 (1956).

106 Dec. No. 78,+ Pertusola Claim, 2 Recueil 100, 101 (our translation). Cf. also note 153 below.

107 Dee. No. 86, Dec. 15, 1950,+ Dame Hénon Claim, 3 Recueil 35, 38 (French contention).

108 Dec. No. 158, Oct. 7, 1953, Suermondt et Dumont Claim, 4 ibid. 183, 187; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 491, 492.

109 Dec. No. 194, Dec. 5, 1955,+ Gaz Lebon Claim, 5 Recueil 251, 253, settled in a spirit of conciliation, and calculated at a price half-way between the retail and the wholesale price

110 Suermondt et Dumont Claim, 4 Recueil 183, 186.

111 Ibid. 187.

112 Anglo-Italian Commission, Dec. of March 13, 1954, Currie Claim, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 301, 307, and note 108 above.

113 Dec. No. 146, Jan. 21, 1953, and No. 164, Nov. 21, 1953,° Collas et Michel Claim, 4 Recueil 134, 140, and 277, 280; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 628, 632.

114 Collas et Michel Claim, 4 Recueil 277, 282 (our translation).

115 Ibid. 283.

116 “ Dec. No. 183, March 7, 1955,° I.V.E.M. Claim (No. 2), 5 Hid. 153, 180; 1955 Int. Law Rep. 875.

117 Idem, 5 Recueil 178.

118 Dec. No. 162, Nov. 20, 1953, Due de Guise Claim, 4 Recueil 200, 209.

119 Ibid. 203, 205.

120 Dec. No. 157, Oct. 6, 1953, Mossé Claim (No. 3), 4 Recueil 179, 182; 1954 Int. Law Rep. 217.

121 Suermondt et Dumont Claim, 4 Recueil 183, 188; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 491.

122 Dec. No. 182, March 5, 1955, Société’ Nationale des Chemins de Per Français Claim (No. 2), 5 Recueil 151, 152.

123 Dame Garnet, Veuve Vlasto Claim/ 5 Recueil 17, 26.

124 I.V.E.M. Claim (No. 2), 5 Recueil 153, 179; 1953 Int. Law rep. 875.

125 Idem, 5 Recueil 153, 187; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 875 (our translation).

126 Piedmont Silk Weaving Company's Claim, 3 Recueil 5, 16; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 427; Collas et Michel Claim,0 4 Recueil 277, 280; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 628; Guillemot- Jacquemin Claim,+ 1 Recueil 47, 50; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 403.

127 Dec. No. 170, July 5, 1954,” Ousset Claim, 5 Recueil 36, 46; 1955 Int. Law Rep.312, 315.

128 Dec. No. 108, Sept. 15, 1951, Explosifs et Produits Chimiques Claim, 3 Recueil 129, 133.

129 Dec. No. 183, I.V.E.M. Claim ? (No. 2), 5 ibid. 153, 187; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 875 (our translation). Bos, loc. cit. 152, points critically to the fact that the Franco- Italian Commission in its Decision No. 65 of July 19, 1950,+ Société Foncière Lyonnaise Hôtel d'Ospedaletti Ligure Claim, 2 Recueil 74, 76, imposed on Italy a time limit to comply with certain French requests, although Franee had not asked for such a time limit. In this case, however, Italy did not raise any objection of “ultra petita.“

130 Italian-U. S. Commission, Dec. No. 5, March 4, 1952,+ Carnelli Claim, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 340, 346; digested in 50 A.J.I.L. 153 (1956).

131 Italian-XT. S. Commission, Dec. No. 24, July 12, 1954+ Fatovieh Claim, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 409, 412; digested in 50 A.J.I.L. 153 (1956).

132 1955 Int. Law Rep. 413.

133 Dec. No. 167, March 9, 1954,+ Società Generale dei Metalli Preziosi Claim, 5 Recueil 5, 11.

134 Italian-TJ. S. Commission, Dec. No. 5, March 4, 1952,+ Carnelli Claim, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 340, 346.

135 Dec. No. 159, Oct. 19, 1953,+ 4 Recueil 189, 194, and Dec. No. 172, July 7, 1954,+ Dame Lachenal Claim, 5 ibid. 83, 89.

136 Dec. No. 17, March 16, 1949,+ “ P e t i t Fils de C.J. Bonnet” Claim, 1 ibid. 57, 58.

137 Dec. No. 82, Dec. 1, 1950, Piedmont Silk Weaving Factory Claim, 3 ibid. 5, 13 ; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 427 (our translation).

138 Dame Garnet, Veuve Vlasto Claim, Dec. No. 169,+ March 16, 1954, 5 Recueil 17, 21.

139 Dec. No. 174, July 6, 1954,” Schappe Spinning Mill Claim, ibid. 93, 103; 1954 Int. Law Rep. 141, 142.

140 Idem, 5 Recueil 104; 1954 Int. Law Rep. 143.

141 Dec. No. 193, Sept. 15, 1955, Sudreau Claim, 5 Recueil 243, 250.

142 Dee. No. 163, Oct. 9, 1953, 4 ibid. 213, 237; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 63, 74.

143 Dec. No. 146, Jan. 21, 1953, Collas et Michel Claim, 4 Recueil 134, 141; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 628, 633.

144 Dee. No. 163, Oct. 9, 1953, 4 Recueil 213, 226; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 63, 64 (our translation).

145 Idem, 4 Recueil 229; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 67.

146 Dee. No. 196, Dee. 7, 1955, In re Bizzo (No. 3), 5 Recueil 260, 282; 1955 Int. Law Rep. 317, 328.

147 Italian-U. S. Commission, Dec. No. 22, Feb. 19, 1954,+ ibid. 646, 648; digested in 50 A.J.I.L. 157 (1956).

148 Italian-U. S. Commission, Dee. No. 5, March 4, 1952,+ 1955 Int. Law Sep. 340, 344.

149 Dec. No. 107, Sept. 15, 1951, Due de Guise Claim, 3 Recueil 119, 127; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 423, 426.

150 Dec. No. 136, June 25, 1952,° In re Rizzo (No. 1), 4 Recueil 82, 92; 1952 Int. Law Sep. 478, 482.

151 Dec. No. 95, March 8, 1951,” Pertusola Claim, 3 Recueil 67, 92; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 414.

152 Idem, 3 Recueil 77 f.; 1951 Int. Law Rep. 417.

153 Dec. No. 78, Oct. 2, 1950,+ Pertusola Claim, 2 Recueil 100, 104.

154 In re Rizzo (No.I),’ 4 ibid. 82, 87.

155 Ibid. 82, 94; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 478, 483 f.; Dec. No. 171, July 6, 1954, In re Rizzo (No. 2), 5 Recueil 57, 69; 1955 Int. Law Rep. 500, 504.

156 Idem, 5 Reoueil 57, 69; 1955 Int. Law Rep. 500, 504 f.

157 Idem, 5 Recueil 57, 70; 1955 Int. Law Rep. 500, 505.

158 In re Bizzo (No. 1), 4 Recueil 82, 99; 1952 Int. Law Rep. 478, 486.

159 Dee. No. 144, Jan. 17, 1953,° Moss6 Claim, 4 Recueil 117, 127; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 217, 221.

160 Idem, 4 Recueil 127; 1953 Int. Law Rep. 221 (our translation).

161 Cf., for example, note 25 above.

162 Cf. notes 144 and 145.

163 Cf. note 63 above. Compare especially Dec. No. 18, Oct. 22, 1953,° of the Italian-U. S. Conciliation Commission, Armstrong Cork Company Claim, 1955 Int. Law Rep. 945, 952: “The error committed in the Pertusola case is due to the desire to interpret according to the continental technique the provision of a Treaty the origin of which is Anglo-Saxon: it is also due to the desire to assert a theoretical, abstract conception of causality in the interpretation of the Treaty, discarding the normal doctrines of causality,” with Bolla, loc. cit. 70.

164 Schlesinger, loc. cit. 741, 747 f.