Responsibility of states for damage caused in their territory to the person or property of foreigners

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1831665921

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-222025

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Maúrtua, Víctor M.; Scott, James Brown http://d-nb.info/gnd/117654191

Title:: Responsibility of states for damage caused in their territory to the person or property of foreigners

Place of publication:: New York

Publisher:: Oxford Univ. Press

Year of publication:: 1930

Scope:: V, 67 S.

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: III. Municipal legislation

Collection:: Economics Books

RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES Another important decision worthy of consideration is the one of the Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, rendered in 1926. In one of its most interesting rulings dealing with the responsibility arising out of a homicide that may have been justified by the military regulations of the United States in force, the Commission declared that the principles of the Law of Nations in reference to the protection of human life prevailed over the provisions of the municipal law.! This is probably the clearest and most specific case in which this principle of natural justice has been adopted as a practical rule of international conduct. The Commission upheld this principle as against the municipal law and established in a practical way the manner in which the State incurs responsibility through imperfect legislation.2 * Claims Commission, United States and Mexico—Opinions of Commissioners— February 4, 1926—July 23, 1927—Washington, 1927. “In this issue of legislative responsibility, there are many other relevant cases among which the following may be cited: 1. The cases arising out of the Italian law of 1912 in connection with the State monopoly of the life insurance business and the Uruguayan legislative sanction in re the same subject. 2. The Montiji case (Moore 1440), in which the Arbitrator upheld the treaty as against the Constitution. (The laws of the Republic should conform to the provisions of the Treaty, and not the Treaty to the provisions of the law.) 3. The Baldwin case (Ralston 102), in which the Arbitrator upheld the municipal laws in so far as they were not in conflict with the general established principles of the Law of Nations. 4. The Massiani case of the Claims Commission, France and Venezuela (Ralston 103), wherein the Arbitrator up- held the laws of Venezuela, which did not embody any particular offence but, on the tontrary, were, in general, in full accord with the Law of Nations. 5 The Creole case {Ralston 104).

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsibility of states for damage caused in their territory to the person or property of foreigners

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation