vom Verbot der entschädigungslosen Enteignung die schon er- 
wähnte Entscheidung des Ständigen Internationalen Gerichtshofs 
in Sachen "Gewisse deutsche Interessen in polnisch Oberschlesien‘ 
zu nennen. 
In dieser Äntscheidung heißt es: 
"Purther there san be no doubt that the e:. ropriation 
3llowed under Head III of the Convention is & derogation 
from the rules generally applisi in regard to the treat- 
sent of foreigners and the principle of respect for 
sested rights. As this derogahi9o? “4s21lf is stristly in 
Ihe nature of an exception, i* is vermissible to conclude 
“hat no further derogation is allowed. 
The action of Poland which the Court has judged to be 
zontrary to the Geneva Convention is not #ı expropriatior 
- to render which lawful only the payment of fair 
sompensation would have been wanting; it is a seizure of 
property, rights and interests which could not be 
expropriated even against compensation, save under the 
exceptional conditions fixed by Article 7 of the said 
Convention". 
Publication ....., A.B.0., S.46, 47. 
Über die Stellung der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika zu der Frage 
ler entschädigungslosen Enteignung von Ausländern ist die Note 
son Staatssekretär Hall an den mexikanischen Botschafter in 
Yashington vom 21. Juli 1938 bezeichnend. Darin heißt es: 
The taking of property without ecompensation is not 
sxpropriation. It is confiscation. It is no less 
»onfiscation because there may be an expressed intent 
bo pay at some time in the future....." 
‚.... The right of prompt and just compensation for 
expropriated property is a part of this structure. It 
is a principle to which the Government of the United 
States and most governments of the world have 
emphatically subseribed and which they have practiced 
and which must be maintained.”" 
Zitiert nach Bindschedler, a.a.0,, 5.21.