Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:36:10.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Immunity of State Property from Foreign Jurisdiction and Execution: Doctrine and Practice of the German Democratic Republic*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Fritz Enderlein
Get access

Extract

In papers dealing with sovereign immunity, states are quite often divided into those advocating the so-called absolute immunity, and those that plead for the so-called restrictive immunity. Here, the socialist states are usually classed among the supporters of the absolute theory.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 10 , December 1979 , pp. 111 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1979

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. See for instance Göran, Melander, “Waiver of Immunity”, 45 Nordisk Tidsskrift for International Ret, Acta Scandinavia juris gentium (1976) 1, p. 23 et seq.Google Scholar (with reference to Brownlie, , Principles of Public International Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1973) pp. 320, 321).Google Scholar

2. Loc. cit. p. 26.

3. Horst, Wiemann, “Rechtsstellung der sozialistischen Aussenhandelsunternehmen im Verkehr mit kapitalistischen Ländern”Google Scholar [Legal status of socialist foreign trade enterprises in trade with capitalist countries] Der Aussenhandel (24/1961) Beilage Recht im Aussenhandel (12/1961) p. 1 et seq.

4. Jörgen, Haalck, “Zur Immunität der staatlichen Seeschiffe” [On the Immunity of State Ships] 11 Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock (1962)Google Scholar, Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 1/2 p. 143 et seq.

5. Karlfried, Hofmann, “Die staatlichen Organe für auswärtige Beziehungen” [State organs for external relations], in Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts [Text-book of International Law] Part 1, ed. Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Völkerrecht beim Institut für internationale Beziehungen an der Akademie für Staats- und Rechtswissenschaft der DDR (Berlin: Staatsverlag der DDR 1973) p. 403 et seq., particularly p. 434 et seq.Google Scholar

6. Op.cit. p. 439 et seq.

7. For instance, there will be no reference to the special aspect of state immunity according to which only a state's own law is to be applied to the acts of a state and its organs. See Genkin, D.M., Der Aussenhandel und seine rechtliche Regelung in der UdSSR [Foreign trade and its legal regulation in the USSR] (Berlin: Staatsverlag der DDR 1963) p. 325.Google Scholar

8. See Wörterbuch der Aussenpolitik [Dictionary of Foreign Policy] which was issued on the basis of a Soviet work (Berlin: Dietz-Verlag 1965) p. 309Google Scholar. On the strict distinction between immunity with regard to jurisdiction, and immunity from execution see also Bishop, William W. jr., “New United States policy limiting sovereign immunity”, 47 AJIL (1953) p. 102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Castel, J.G., “Immunity of a foreign state from execution: French practice”, 46 AJIL (1952) p. 520Google Scholar; There is a recent statement on this subject from Alfred, Verdross/Bruno, Simma, Universelles Völkerrecht, Theorie und Praxis [Universal International Law, Doctrine and Practice] (Berlin-West: Duncker und Humblot 1976) p. 568:Google Scholar

“The submission of a state to the jurisdiction of a foreign state ‘applies only to the acts mentioned in the declaration. Thus it does not follow from a submission to jurisdiction that the State also submits to execution’”.

The different treatment of jurisdictional and executional immunity is obviously generally acknowledged. So, waivers of immunity from jurisdiction do not, according to Article 2 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, refer to execution. (The same line is found in Art. 4 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN Specialized Agencies).

This practice is also followed by the European Convention of 16 May 1962 on State Immunity from Jurisdiction and Execution, which only concerns legal proceedings and not execution measures, which is regretted by some of the authors. But the Convention for the Settlement of International Investment Disputes had also only referred to legal proceedings, and did not demand that states waive their immunity from execution.

9. Láaszló, Réeczei, Internationales Privatrecht [Private International Law] (Budapest: Akadémiou Kiadó 1960) p. 157 et seq.Google Scholar

10. Pereterski, I.S./Krylov, S.B., Lehrbuch des Internationalen Privatrechts [Text-book of Private International Law] (Berlin: VEB Deutscher Zentralverlag 1962) p. 205 et seq.Google Scholar

11. Lunz, L.A., Internationales Privatrecht [Private International Law] vol. II, Besonderer Teil (Berlin: Staatsverlag 1964) p. 51 et seq.Google Scholar

12. Boguslavsky, M.M., Staatliche Immunität [State Immunity] (Berlin-West: Berlin-Verlag 1965).Google Scholar

13. Kleines politisches Wörterbuch [Concise Political Dictionary] (Berlin: Dietz-Verlag 1973) p. 347.Google Scholar

14. See Wiemann, loc.cit., p. 5 et seq.

15. “Being a characteristic feature of the state, sovereignty comes into being with the foundation of the state. Thus sovereignty is not brought about by the respective State's recognition by another state. Recognition has no constitutive effect with regard to sovereignty.” See Staatsrecht der DDR, Lehrbuch [State Law, Textbook] (Berlin: Staatsverlag 1977) p. 74.Google Scholar

16. This means among other things that a state, in the interests of peaceful co-existence within the community of states, may exceptionally submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign state. See also Philippe, Kahn, La Vente Commerciale Internationale [The internationale Sale of Goods] (Paris: Libr. Sirey 1961) p. 274.Google Scholar

17. This does not preclude, also in socialist legal science, a distinction being drawn in respect of the acts of individual state organs and institutions between carrying out state activities and participation in civil law proceedings which in the case of the infliction of damages entails liability, according to Gesetz zur Regelung der Staatshaftung – Staatshaftungsgesetz – vom 12 May 1969 (GBI. I 1968 No. 5 S. 34, para. 1) or according to civil law provisions, Zivilgesetzbuch der DDR vom 19 June 1975 (GBI. I No. 27 S. 465 paras. 323 et seq.). See Martin, Posch, Schutz des Lebens, der Gesundheit und des Eigentums vor Schadenszufügung [Protection of Life, Health, and Property against infliction of damage] Grundriss Zivilrecht [Civil Law Compendium] Heft 8 (Berlin: Staatsverlag 1977) p. 44 et seq.Google Scholar

18. “It should surely be agreed that the judge is not the proper organ for deciding on the nature of an act; for by arbitrary qualification the judge can turn aside the problem posited by the Act of State doctrine”. See Erik, Suy, “Immunity of States before Belgian Courts and Tribunals”, 27 ZaöRV (1967) p. 680.Google Scholar

19. On this problem, Suy wrote:

“It is one thing to present a theory of restricted immunity on the basis of a distinction between acts of public power and acts of administration, but quite another to put the distinction into practice”., loc.cit., p. 677. The various attempts at a classification based on either the contents, or the form, the motive and the purpose, or finally “the nature of the State act” will not be described in detail here. Cf., among others, William W. Bishop jr., loc.cit., p. 203 et seq.; George, Dahm, “Völkerrechtliche Grenzen der inländsichen Gerichtsbarkeit gegenüber ausländischen Staaten” [Limits of jurisdiction in regard to foreign states by International Law] in Festschrift für Arthur Nikisch (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, Paul Siebeck 1958) p. 163 et seq.Google Scholar; Lauterpacht, H., “The problem of jurisdictional immunities of foreign states”, 28 BYIL (1951). p. 222 et seq.Google Scholar; Schmitthoff, Clive M., “The Claim of Sovereign Immunity in the Law of International Trade”, 7 ICLQ (1958) p. 455CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Philippe Kahn, op.cit., p. 277 et seq.

That one has not yet succeeded in overcoming the difficulties in applying the theory of restrictive immunity and giving a clear definition of the concept “commercial activities” is shown by the contents of the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. See also Delaume, G., “Public Debt and Sovereign Immunity; The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976”, 71 AJIL (1977) 3 p. 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. See Convention of 13 February 1946, on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, German text in: Die Organisation der Vereinten Nationen[The United Nations Organization] Dokumente, Band II [Documents, vol. II] (Berlin: Staatsverlag 1966) p. 35 et seq.Google Scholar, English text in: UNTS vol. 1 p. 15 et seq. See also Convention of 21 November 1947, on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, German text, op.cit., p. 46 et seq. English text in: Yearbook of the UN 1947/1948 p. 190 et seq.

21. See Staatsrecht der DDR, op.cit., p. 39; For more details see also Heinz, Such, Lehr- und Studienmaterial zum Wirtschaftsrecht, Heft 1, Allgemeiner Teil I [Materials on Economic Law for Teaching and Studying, Issue 1, General Part I] (Berlin: Staatsverlag 1972) p. 45 et seq.Google Scholar

22. Wirtschafts- und Aussenwirtschaftsrecht für Ökonomen [Economic Law and Foreign Trade Law for Economists] (Berlin: Staatsverlag 1977) p. 47.Google Scholar

23. The legislation of the USA also proceeds from the state in the comprehensive sense, from the central government, its political subdivisions including local government, and its agencies and instrumentalities, including separate legal persons of the state and state interest. See Georges R. Delaume, loc.cit., p. 402 et seq.

24. So, Horst, Wiemann, “La situation de la personne morale d'Etat dans le commerce international” [The position of state legal persons in international commerce] in VIe Congres de l'Association Internationale des Juristes Democrates (Bruxelles: Association Internationale des Juristes Democrates 1956) p. 65.Google Scholar

25. See also Fritz, Enderlein, Aussenhandelsmonopol und ökonomisches System des Sozialismus [Foreign Trade Monopoly and Economic System of Socialism] Aktuelle Beiträge der Staats- und Rechtswissenschaft, Heft 32, (Potsdam-Babelsberg: Selbstverlag Akademie für Staats- und Rechtswissenschaft 1968).Google Scholar

26. Cf., Fritz, Enderlein and others, Handbuch der Aussenhandelsverträge, Band 1, Der Aussenhandelshaufvertrag [Manual of Foreign Trade Contracts, vol. 1, International Sale of goods] (Berlin: Staatsverlag 1971) p. 141 et seq.Google Scholar

27. See Stephan, Supranowitz, “The Law of State-owned Enterprises in a Socialist State”, Law and Contemporary Problems (1961) p. 794Google Scholar. Cf., also infra in section 3.

28. In the GDR, there is extensive literature dealing with the structural arrangement of state economy, whereby enterprises and other economic organizations are always proceeded from as being constituent parts of the uniform socialist economy, units of a uniform economic structure. Here, the legal status of the enterprises is thoroughly examined. Cf., among others, Supranowitz, loc.cit., p. 797 et seq.; Such, H., “Main Lines in the Development of Economic Law in the German Democratic Republic”, in Law and Economic Reform in Socialist Countries, ed. Gyula, Eörsi and Attila, Harmathy (Budapest: Akadémai Kiadó 1971) p. 167 et seq.Google Scholar; H. Such, op.cit., in n. 21 p. 102 et seq. (with graphical surveys); Günther, Klinger and others, Kommentar zur Verordnung über die Aufgaben, Rechte und Pflichten der volkseigenen Betriebe, Kombinate und VVB [Commentary to the Decree on the Tasks, Rights and Obligations of Nationally-Owned Enterprises, Combines, and Associations of Nationally-Owned Enterprises] (Berlin: Staatsverlag 1975)Google Scholar; Wirtschafts- und Aussenwirtschaftsrecht, op.cit., in n. 22 p. 179 et seq; Joachim, Göhring and others, Grundfragen des sozialistischen Zivilrechts, Grundriss Zivilrecht [Basic Issues of Socialist Civil Law, Compendium Civil Law] Heft 8 (Berlin: Staatsverlag 1978) p. 119 et seqGoogle Scholar. For a detailed representation of the legal status of foreign trade enterprises, cf., Manfred, Kemper/Dietrich, Maskow, Aussenwirtschaftsrecht der DDR [Foreign Trade Law of the GDR] (Berlin: Staatsverlag 1975) p. 123 et seq.Google Scholar

29. Wiemann, loc.cit., in n. 3 p. 6; Wiemann, op.cit., in n. 24 p. 66. According to L.A. Lunz, the Soviet foreign trade associations as “independent legal persons” likewise do not enjoy immunity, op.cit., in n. 11 p. 44; see also Boguslavsky, op.cit., in n. 12 p. 180 et seq. If immunity is not claimed it is not necessary to refuse immunity. With regard to socialist foreign trade enterprises, therefore, it is not correct to say that immunity is refused to those State enterprises. But see Seidl-Hohenveldern, I., Völkerrecht [International Law] (Köln, Berlin-West, Bonn, München: Heymann 1975) p. 259.Google Scholar

30. Lunz, Ibid.

31. Boguslavsky, op.cit., in n. 12 p. 178. The limits between the first and the second spheres are drawn by their different positions vis-à-vis the state budget. The subjects belonging to the first sphere are usually described as state organs and state institutions, and include the ministries and other central state organs, the councils of counties, districts, boroughs, towns and communities, as well as associations of communities, all state organs and state institutions which are subordinate to the ministries and the other central state organs, as well as the state institutions which are subordinate to the local councils. (Cf., Gesetz über die Staatshaushaltsordnung der DDR [Act concerning the order of the State Budget of the GDR] of 13 December 1968, and I. Durchführungsbestimmung – Kassenordnung des Staatshaushalts vom 1 Juli 1974 [1st Implementing Regulation – Finance Regulations of the State Budget] of 1 July 1974, GB1.I p. 341 et seq.).

The second sphere covers nationally-owned enterprises and combines, associations of nationally-owned enterprises and other economy-controlling bodies, foreign trade enterprises and banks. On the concept of state organs and institutions which are financed by the budget see also Verordnung über die Stellung, Aufgaben, Rechte und Pflichten des Haushaltsbearbeiters – Haushaltsbearbeiter-Verordnung – [Decree on the position, tasks, rights, and obligations of the budgetary officer – Budgetary Officer Decree –] of 12 July 1974, GB1. I p. 373 et seq.

32. The State Bank of the GDR belongs to the central organs of the Council of Ministers. Cf., Gesetz über die Staatsbank der DDR [Act on the State Bank of GDR] of 19 December 1974, GBI. I p. 580.

33. On the immunity of the State Bank of the USSR cf., Boguslavsky, op.cit., in n. 12 p. 176.

34. Cf., para. 1 Anordnung Nr. 2 über den Zahlungs- und Verrechnungsverkehr mit anderen Staaten [Instruction no. 2 on payments and clearance with other States] of 1 July 1966, GBI. II p. 476, as well as para. 8 Satzung der Deutschen Aussenhandelsbank AG [Statute of the German Foreign Trade Bank Joint-Stock Company] of 18 May 1966.

35. When GDR banks raise credits abroad, it is customary to waive all rights to immunity in a special clause, in order to clarify the situation from the outset. In cases in which a credit is given the foreign partner is also called on, if there are doubts as to its state or non-state capacity, to give a declaration of waiver. A typical example might read:

“Borrower irrevocably submits to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of … Borrower hereby irrevocably waives any sovereign immunity to which it or its properties may be entitled …”.

36. Gisela, Neumann/Helga, Rudolph, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, 8. Lehrbrief, Das System der rechtlichen Regelung der Aussenwirtschaftsbeziehungen der DDR zu nichtsozialistischen Staaten [International Economic Law, 8th Teaching letter, The system of the legal regulation of the foreign trade relations of the GDR with non-socialist states] (Berlin: VEB Verlag Technik 1973) p. 37.Google Scholar

37. See Eugen, Faude/Gerhard, Grote/Christa, Luft, Sozialistische Aussenwirtschaft [Socialist Foreign Trade] (Berlin: Verlag die Wirtschaft 1976) p. 374Google Scholar; On the same subject see also Kemper/Maskow, op.cit., in n. 28 p. 146 et seq.

38. Art. 4 of the Appendix to Vertrag über Handel und Seeschiffahrt zwischen der DDR und der UdSSR [Agreement on Trade and Shipping between the GDR and the USSR] of 27 September 1957 über den rechtlichen Status der Handelsvertretung der DDR in der UdSSR und der Handelsvertretung der UdSSR in der DDR [on the legal status of the trade representation of the GDR in the USSR and of the trade representation of the USSR in the GDR] reads: “The trade representation enjoys all immunities a sovereign state is entitled to, which also extend to the activities of the state in the field of foreign trade, with the following exceptions which the parties to the agreement have agreed to (a) disputes arising out of foreign trade contracts … which have been concluded or guaranteed by the trade representation, are subject to the jurisdiction of the state on whose territory the trade representation is located …”. GBI. I 1958 p. 23.

39. Here we are dealing, as a rule, with an implied waiver. On various occasions the GDR has waived immunity in the case of labour disputes initiated against GDR representations abroad by their former employees.

40. See, for instance, Haalck, J., “Immunity of State-owned Ships and Arbitration”, in Proceedings, Fifth International Arbitration Congress (New Delhi 1975) C IIId 1–2.Google Scholar

41. In Verdoss/Simma, op.cit., in n. 8 p. 566, it is stated that the socialist states acknowledge the immunity of all foreign state acts. This statement does not hold true for the GDR without any qualification.

42. Such a division is not unfamiliar to the theory and practice of Western States. Delaume points out that the draft of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, para. 1606 (b), which deals with submission to US jurisdiction, made a distinction between central government and subordinate state organs which “in effect was based simply on the ‘personality’ of the borrower rather than the ‘nature’ of the act”, loc.cit., in n. 19 p. 405. As far as execution is concerned, a distinction is made relating to structure between a foreign state and its political subdivisions on the one hand, and its agencies and instrumentalities on the other, in para. 1610(c) of the final text of the Act. Delaume considers this distinction which “in effect, [is] based upon the ‘personality’ of the foreign party and not on the ‘nature of the act” as “somewhat puzzling”, loc.cit., p. 410 et seq.

43. Art. 1 section 1 of the GDR Constitution reads:

“The German Democratic Republic is a socialist state of workers and farmers. It is the political organization of the working people in town and countryside led by the working class and its Marxist-Leninist party”. Constitution of the GDR in the version of the Act amending the Constitution of the GDR of 7 October 1974, GBI. I p. 432.

44. Such, op.cit., in n. 21 p. 157.

45. Staatsrecht der DDR, op.cit., in n. 15 p. 54; On the same subject cf., also: Wirtschaftsrecht für das staatswissenschaftliche Studium, Grundriss [Economic Law for studies of political science, Compendium] (Berlin: Staatsverlag 1978) p. 24.Google Scholar

46. See also J. Göhring, op.cit., in n. 28 p. 111 et seq.

47. Suy too recognizes that the differentiation of state property “is rather a problem of internal administrative law”, loc.cit., in n. 18 p. 692. It also follows from the sovereignty of states that the extent and the preconditions of the transfer of properties into state property is exclusively a question of national law. See Gustav-Adolf, Lübchen/Martin, Posch, Zivilrechtsverhältnisse mit Auslandsberührung, Grundriss Zivilrecht [Civil Law Relations with Foreign Elements, Compendium Civil Law] Heft 10 (Berlin: Staatsverlag 1978) p. 50.Google Scholar

48. Supranowitz, loc.cit., in n. 27 p. 794.

49. Staatsrecht der DDR, op.cit., in n. 15 p. 128.

50. Such, op.cit., in n. 21 p. 128.

“The socialist State is a permanent subject of property rights in respect of all objects of people's property; it is the owner of this right in its totality, i.e., it does not allocate these property rights to other subjects in the sense that it deprives itself of certain parts of its property rights”. In Wirtschafts- und Aussenwirtschaftsrecht, op.cit., in n. 22 p. 54.

51. Ibid. Therefore, each nationally-owned foreign trade enterprise is responsible for itself, none of them is responsible for other enterprises or the state, and the state is not responsible for the enterprises.

52. Johannes, Klinkert/Ellenor, Oehler/Günther, Rohde, Eigentumsrecht, Nutzung von Grundstücken und Gebäuden zum Wohnen und zur Erholung, Grundriss Zivilrecht [Property Right Use of Real Estates and Buildings for Dwelling and Recreation, Compendium Civil Law] Heft 2 (Berlin: Staatsverlag 1977) p. 18 et seq.Google Scholar

53. Para. 19 section 1 of the GDR Civil Code reads:

“The nationally-owned enterprises, combines, economy-controlling organs, the state organs and institutions are authorized, for the purpose of discharging the state tasks assigned to them and for exercising the competences made over to them, to own and utilize, on the basis of the legal provisions, the people's property entrusted to them by the socialist state. In implementing the state plans they are entitled to dispose, within the framework of the legal provisions, of the people's property entrusted to them”.

54. For more details see Such, op.cit., in n. 21 p. 142.

55. They include buildings, plant, equipment. Cf., Beschluss über die Planung und Leitung des Prozesses der Reproduktion der Grundfonds [Resolution on the Planning and Management of the Process of the Reproduction of the Fixed Assets Fund] of 14 December 1971, GBI. II p. 17.

56. They include subjects of labour, material and auxiliary material, but also the money received from furnishing services and the sale of manufactured goods, including outstanding claims. Cf., Verordnung über die Planung und Finanzierung der Umlaufmittel [Decree on the Planning and Financing of the self-financed working capital] of 20 January 1971, GBI. II p. 85.

57. These are the financial resources for remunerating the working people.

58. These comprise: fund for the purposes of science and technology (instruction 30 September 1968, GBI. II p. 859); investment fund; reserves fund; funds for repair (Instruction of 19 January 1965, GBI. II p. 106); risk fund (Instruction of 10 March 1971, GBI. II p. 265); incentive fund (Instruction of 8 May 1970, GBI. II p. 359); cultural and social fund (Decree of 12 January 1972, GBI. II p. 49); bonus fund (Decree of 12 January 1972, GBI. II p. 49).

59. See also Verordnung über die Aufgaben und die Arbeitsweise des staatlichen Vertragsgerichts [Decree on the Tasks and the Operation of the State Arbitration Board] of 18 April 1963 in the wording of 12 March 1970. Para. 45 reads:

“(1) Money claims for which there are executory decreesof the State Arbitration Board may be collected in execution proceedings against socialist enterprises by way of deduction from the account of the debtor … (2) The execution of monetary claims upon funds which are designed for special purposes may only take place if the monetary claim, according to the plan, was to be settled from this fund”.

60. This, however, presupposes a recognition of the foreign judgment, which we do not want to describe in detail here. See para. 193 Gesetz über das gerichtliche Verfahren in Zivil-, Familien- und Arbeitsrechtssachen – Zivilprozessordnung – [Code of Civil Procedure] of 19 June 1975, GBI. I p. 533. (German abbreviation ZPO).

At this point the GDR's membership of several international conventions concerning the recognition and execution of foreign awards should be mentioned, e.g., the Geneva Convention of 26 September 1927, and the New York Convention of 10 June 1958, GBI. II 1976, No. 9 p. 219. On the same subject see also Heinz Strohbach in Handbuch der Aussenhandelsverträge Band I, op. cit., in n. 26 p. 496 et seq.

61. Para. 85 section 1 ZPO.

62. On the writ of execution relating to foreign judgments see para. 195 et seq. ZPO.

63. Italics supplied. See Art. 16 Vertrag über Handel und Seeschiffahrt zwischen der DDR und der UdSSR, loc.cit., n. 38.

64. For more details see Jörgen Haalck, loc.cit., in n. 4; Haalck, J./Reintanz, G., Internationales Seerecht [International Maritime Law] (Berlin: Militärverlag der DDR 1972) p. 214Google Scholar. On the immunity of state merchant ships see also Wörterbuch der Aussenpolitik, op.cit., in n. 8 p. 309.

65. The GDR and most of the other socialist states, therefore, are not members of the International Convention on the Unification of the Rules Governing the Immunities of State Ships of 10 April 1926. See also, Jörgen, Haalck, “Zur Berücksichtigung internationaler Konventionen im Seerecht der DDR”, [On the Consideration of International Conventions in the Maritime Law of the GDR] 13 Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock (1964)Google Scholar, Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, Heft 1 p. 93.

66. So the GDR is a member of the London Convention of 17 June 1960, for the Safety of Life at Sea. GBI. special issue no. 531. With effect from 8 January 1958, the GDR is a member of the Covention of 29 May, 1933, for the Unification of the Rules on the Seizure of Aircraft. RGBI. 1935 II p. 302 et seq. See GBI. I 1959 No. 30 p. 505.

67. In a contribution to the Vth International Arbitration Congress held in New Delhi (cf., n. 40) Haalck expressed the view that an arbitration clause means not only submission to the respective court of arbitration, but also waiver of the plea of immunity from execution measures. Later on, however, he departed from this somewhat premature statement. In his report on the said Arbitration Congress he wrote that in the working group which dealt with “arbitration between States or, respectively, State controlled enterprises and private enterprises”, it was made clear that an arbitration agreement means a waiver of immunity, but not as far as execution is concerned. Haalck, J., V. Internationaler Arbitragekongress in New Delhi [5th International Congress on Arbitration in New Delhi] 7 Seewirtschaft (1975) 3 p. 138Google Scholar; See also Jörgen, Haalck, Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit im Bereich der intersystemaren WirtschaftsbeziehungenGoogle Scholar [On the Present Position on Arbitration in the Sphere of Economic Relations between Different Systems] Aussenwirtschaft 46/75, 8. Beilage Recht im Aussenhandel, p. 3.

68. Para. 11 Verordnung über die Flaggenführung und Eigentumsrechte an Schiffen und das Schiffsregister – Schiffsregisterverordnung – [Decree on Flag Showing and Property of Ships and the Register of Ships – Ships Register-Decree] of 27 May 1976, GBI. I p. 285. See also Dolly, Richter-Hannes/Ralf, Richter/Norbert, Trotz, Seehandelsrecht – Grundriss – [Maritime Trade Law, Compendium] (Berlin: transpress VEB Verlag für Verkehrswesen 1977) p. 47Google Scholar; Günter Hepper, “Zum Rechtsstatus des Seeschiffes aus der Sicht der neuen Seerecht-kodifikationen der DDR und der III. UN-Seerechtskonferenz [On the Legal Status of Ships from the Point of View of the New Maritime Codifications of the GDR and the 3rd UN Conference on the Law of the Sea] in: Gedenkschrift Jörgen Haalck, ed. Gesellschaft für Seerecht der DDR in Verbindung mit der Wilhelm-Pieck-Univcrsität Rostock und der Ingenieurhoch-schule für Seefahrt Warnemünde/Wustow (Rostock 1978) p. 108; Harry, Edelstein/Günter, Hepper, “Die Schiffsregist erverordnung der DDR” [The Ships Register Decree of the GDR] (part II), 9 Seewirtschaft (1977) Heft 8 p. 446.Google Scholar

69. Therefore Haalck and Reintanz speak of an immunity of different grades for men-of-war, service vessels and merchant ships, op.cit., in n. 64 p. 206 et seq.