Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kapitel 10: Erworbene Rechte in der WKSVAS

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Die Bindung der Dritten Welt an das postkoloniale Völkerrecht

Part of the book series: Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht ((BEITRÄGE,volume 264))

  • 918 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Investitionsschutzrechtliche Aspekte der Bindungsdebatte sind gerade in Bezug auf die durch Konzessionen Erworbenen Rechte privater Einzelpersonen oder Unternehmen fremder Staatsangehörigkeit bzw. fremder Staatszugehörigkeit schon in der Debatte um die WKSV vereinzelt aufgeflammt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Siehe Kapitel 9.

  2. 2.

    Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 266, 266; Rosenne, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 285, 288 f.; Castrén, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 290, 292; Bartoš, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 293, 294.

  3. 3.

    Siehe hierzu bereits Teil I und Teil II. Siehe zum Ganzen Ohler, Concessions, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2013), Para. 1 ff.

  4. 4.

    Siehe auch Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 92, Rn. 114. Siehe oben, Kapitel 2.

  5. 5.

    Vgl. Anand, New States and International Law (1972), S. 32.

  6. 6.

    Schrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Ressources: Balancing Rights and Duties (1997), S. 34; Ohler, Concessions, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2013), Para. 2 f. Zu Territoriralregimen siehe auch schon Kapitel 9.

  7. 7.

    Vgl. Ohler, Concessions, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2013), Para. 2 ff.

  8. 8.

    Anand, New States and International Law (1972), S. 23.

  9. 9.

    O´Connell, Recent Problems of State Succession in Relation to New States, 130 Recueil des Cours (1970), S. 95, 135 ff.

  10. 10.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 78 f., mit weiteren Nachweisen. Siehe hierzu auch Shoyele, Acquired Rights, State Succession and the African States: Perspectives in International Law, 10 Sri Lanka Journal of International Law (1998), S. 243, 244 ff.

  11. 11.

    Vgl. O´Connell, Recent Problems of State Succession in Relation to New States, 130 Recueil des Cours (1970), S. 95, 137 ff.

  12. 12.

    Siehe O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 106 ff.

  13. 13.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 81. Unter diesem sehr weiten Begriff subsumierte O´Connell beispielsweise auch Gebietsabtretungen, siehe O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 107.

  14. 14.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), 106.

  15. 15.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 107.

  16. 16.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 82, 107. Allerdings müssten die erworbenen Rechte auch ordnungsgemäß und gutgläubig erworben worden sein, wobei hierfür das nationale Recht des Vorgängerstaates ausschlaggebend sei. O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 83, 134.

  17. 17.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 99. Siehe auch den German Settlers Case, in welchem der StIGH die Existenz erworbener Rechte feststellte, jedoch nicht zu prüfen hatte, unter welchen Umständen ein Staat diese auf Grund seiner souveränen Gesetzgebungsbefugnis abschaffen konnte. PCIJ, PCIJ Series B No. 6, S. 5, 5 ff. Vgl. auch PCIJ, Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, Judgment (Merits) (25. Mai 1926), PCIJ Series A No. 7, S. 3, 22, 36.

  18. 18.

    Lauterpacht, Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law: With Special Reference to International Arbitration (1927), S. 125 ff.; Feilchenfeld, Public Debts and State Succession (1931), S. 396 ff. Vgl. auch Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (2008), S. 213.

  19. 19.

    Diese Position bezogen die USA gegenüber Mexiko zur Zeit der Ausarbeitung der mexikanischen Verfassung von 1917, durch welche Land und Ressourcen zu Staatseigentum und damit amerikanischen Staatbürgern ihre erworbenen Rechte entzogen wurden. Siehe Francioni, Compensation for Nationalisation of Foreign Property: The Borderline between Law and Equity, 24 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1975), S. 255, 259 f. Siehe auch O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 100 f.

  20. 20.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 99 f.

  21. 21.

    Insofern handelte es sich um eine Ausnahme von der Kontinuitätstheorie, vgl. O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), 130. O´Connell schrieb:

    „In placing itself into a relationship with this factual situation it occurs a new legal duty to the title-holder, which duty is not necessarily coterminous with that which was previously owed by the old State. An acquired right becomes in the act of the change of sovereignty subject to the law of the successor State.” O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 100.

    O´Connell stellte hier letztlich philosophische Gerechtigkeitserwägungen an, die sich seiner Ansicht nach im Recht der Staatennachfolge manifestierten. Es ging ihm dabei jedoch nur um einen gerechten Ausgleich mit Blick auf die erworbenen Rechte selbst; der sie begründende Vertrag bleib dabei außer Betracht. So ging O´Connell etwa davon aus, dass es für den Fortbestand von Wirtschaftskonzessionen im Falle der Staatennachfolge unerheblich sei, ob diese den öffentlichen Interessen des Nachfolgerstaates widersprachen oder ob sie dessen vertragliche Verpflichtungen verletzten. O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 134.

  22. 22.

    Dies waren insbesondere die Staaten Lateinamerikas, die UdSSR sowie viele Staaten in Afrika. Siehe hierzu sogleich.

  23. 23.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 100 f.

  24. 24.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 101.

  25. 25.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 101.

  26. 26.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 130 f.

  27. 27.

    Außerdem umstritten war die Frage, ob neben dem Heimatstaat auch die betroffenen Individuen Rechtsträger fremdenrchtlicher Ansprüche waren. Noch kurz nach Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges war man davon ausgegangen, dass Individuen keine Völkerrechtssubjekte sein können und die erworbenen Rechte Privater daher letztlich nur Rechte ihres Heimatstaates gegenüber dem Gaststaat seien. Jessup, Responsibility of States for Injuries to Individuals, 46 Columbia Law Review (1946), S. 903, 903. Siehe hierzu auch Kelly, Nationalization: Effective Compensation and International Law, 4 Virginia Journal of International Law (1964), S. 97, 98. Für O´Connell galt Mitte der 1950er-Jahre bereits als anerkannt, dass der Schutz erworbener Rechte grundsätzlich von allen Individuen gegenüber jedem Staat geltend gemacht werden könne; es gebe nur bis dato völkerrechtlich ausschließlich den Schutzmechanismus des diplomatischen Schutzes, den Heimatstaaten gegenüber dem Gaststaat geltend machen könnten.

    „The fact that a right cannot be enforced does not mean that it does not exist.“

    Auch aus der act of state-Doktrin ergebe sich nichts anderes:

    „The doctrine of act of State is one of English municipal law. It merely denies the English court jurisdiction to inquire into the consequences of acts of the British Government which are inseparable from the extension of its sovereignty. The court is not entitled to ask if such acts are ‘just or unjust, politic or impolitic’, or what legal rights and duties have been carried over in the change of sovereignty. The doctrine is not intended, however, to deny a rule of international law.” O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 85 ff.

  28. 28.

    Auf einen solchen Mindeststandard hatten sich Frankreich, Großbritannien, die USA und Deutschland berufen, nachdem Italien 1917 durch die Errichtung eines Versicherungsmonopols den diesbezüglichen Handlungsspielraum ausländischer Gesellschaften beschnitten hatte. Siehe Francioni, Compensation for Nationalisation of Foreign Property: The Borderline between Law and Equity, 24 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1975), S. 255, 262.

  29. 29.

    Muller, Compensation for Nationalization: A North-South Dialogue, 19 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (1981), S. 35, 36. Siehe Visser, The Prinicple of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Ressource and the Nationalisation of Foreign Interests, 21 Comparative and International Law Journal of South Africa (1988), S. 76, 80; Schrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Ressources: Balancing Rights and Duties (1997), S. 176 f.

  30. 30.

    Dieser Minimumstandard war jedoch in die Kritik geraten:

    „Apart from the serious danger of maintaining in the present stage of evolution of international law a concept of ‘civilised nation’ – given its originally restrictive sense and the old connotations that make it closely related to such ideas as colonialism and capitulation regimes – the doctrine of ‘minimum standard’ does, in fact, beg the question that it purports to answer. This is because it attempts to resolve in a positive way the problem whether there is in international law an obligation to indemnify an alien victim of expropriation, by referring to an international standard, which, instead of being the evidence of such an obligation, is the norm of conduct which has to be proved. That compensation, in a given form and amount, is part of a minimum standard of treatment of aliens is exactly the quid demonstrandum.” Francioni, Compensation for Nationalisation of Foreign Property: The Borderline between Law and Equity, 24 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1975), S. 255, 262 f.

  31. 31.

    Francioni, Compensation for Nationalisation of Foreign Property: The Borderline between Law and Equity, 24 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1975), S. 255, 263 mit weiteren Nachweisen.

  32. 32.

    Pahuja, Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (2011), S. 106 f.

  33. 33.

    Pahuja, Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (2011), S. 129 f. Pahuja meint, für die USA gehörten Rohstoffe der gesamten Welt. Pahuja, Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (2011), S. 139. Pahuja führt hierfür den Wortlaut der Atlantic Charta zwischen USA und UK von 1941, des jeweilgen Artikel 1 der Articles of Agreement der Inetrnational Bank of Reonstruction von 1944 und des International Monetary Fund von 1944 sowie die Präambel des GATT an. Raganathan sieht das Konzept des Gemeinsamen Erbes der Menschheit als Gegenspieler zur PSNR, Raganathan, The Battle for International Law in the Decolonization Era, 1955-1975, Workshop, 5. – 7. November 2015 in Berlin.

  34. 34.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 103.

  35. 35.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 103 f.

  36. 36.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 131. O’Connell konkretisiert dies folgendermaßen: „The injustice is relieved by a payment which is reasonable and approximates to the lowest market value of the interest. This is the standard established in diplomatic practice, and it is as yet only rudimentary.“ Dabei müsse eine solche Enteignung spezifisch und ausdrücklich durch ein eng auszulegendes Gesetz erfolgen. O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 101, 104.

  37. 37.

    „The doctrine concerning the ‘odious’ character of certain concessions, which the United States tended to develop after the Spanish-American War, has not been sanctioned by subsequent practice, and remains as vague as when it was enunciated. The principle of restitution is applicable to ‘odious’ concessions as much as to any others because the works undertaken are useful to the successor State and do in fact enrich it. The origin of the concession is thus immaterial. […] Similar reasoning disposes of the argument that concessions in underdeveloped lands need not to be respected. Such concessions, it is true, may have been granted precisely because the underdeveloped country was incapable of exploiting its own natural resources. However, as the successor State is enriched by the work done it owes a duty of compensation.” O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 135.

  38. 38.

    Francioni, Compensation for Nationalisation of Foreign Property: The Borderline between Law and Equity, 24 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1975), S. 255, 262.

  39. 39.

    Der diplomatische Schutz wurde von den Staaten Lateinamerikas als missbräuchlich empfunden, da er von europäischen Mächten immer wieder gewaltsam durchgesetzt worden war. Vor diesem Hintergrund entwickelte sich die Drago-Doktrin, benannt nach dem argentinischen Außenminister Luis M. Drago, nach der beispielsweise öffentliche Schulden nicht als ausreichender Anlass für eine Intervention europäischer Staaten in Amerika angesehen wurden. García-Amador, The Proposed New International Economic Order: A New Approach to the Law Governing Nationalization and Compensation, 12 Lawyer of The Americas (1980), S. 1, 2 ff.

  40. 40.

    Die Calvo-Doktrin sollte durchgesetzt werden, indem in Investitionsschutzverträgen der diplomatische Schutz des Investors durch seinen Heimatstaat abbedungen wurde. Siehe Oschmann, Calvo-Doktrin und Calvo-Klauseln: Wechselnde Realitäten im Internationalen Wirtschaftsrecht Lateinamerikas (1993), 25 ff.; García-Amador, The Proposed New International Economic Order: A New Approach to the Law Governing Nationalization and Compensation, 12 Lawyer of The Americas (1980), S. 1, 2; Schrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Ressources: Balancing Rights and Duties (1997), S. 177 ff.

  41. 41.

    Dabei ist dieses Zurückziehen vom Allgemeinen Völkerrecht im Rahmen der Allgemeinen Haltung vieler Staaten und Völkerrechtler in Lateinamerika und ihrer Tendenz zur Regionalisierung zu sehen, vgl. Teil I.

  42. 42.

    Siehe Teil II.

  43. 43.

    Kelly, Nationalization: Effective Compensation and International Law, 4 Virginia Journal of International Law (1964), S. 97, 99.

  44. 44.

    Francioni, Compensation for Nationalisation of Foreign Property: The Borderline between Law and Equity, 24 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1975), S. 255, 266.

  45. 45.

    Ausnahem hierzu bildeten einzelne Verträge zur Pauschalabgeltung von Entschädigungsansprüchen zwischen Gast- und Heimatstaat, welche Russland aus politischen Beweggründen eingegangen war. Siehe Francioni, Compensation for Nationalisation of Foreign Property: The Borderline between Law and Equity, 24 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1975), S. 255, 263, 268; Kelly, Nationalization: Effective Compensation and International Law, 4 Virginia Journal of International Law (1964), S. 97, 100.

  46. 46.

    De Visscher, Théories et Réalités en Droit International Public (1953), S. 238; Cavaglieri, La Notion des Droits Acquis et son Application en Droit International Public, 38 Revue Generale de Droit International Public (1931), S. 257, 257 ff.; Friedman, Expropriation in International Law (1953), S. 206 ff.

  47. 47.

    „Again it is on the basis of equity that this dogmatic position, which appears as a corollary of Marxist philosophy, has been softened on both the practical and the theoretical level. The cogent need to reconcile, in the name of peaceful co-existence, Marxist principles of socio-economic organisation with other systems based on respect for private ownership has led socialist writers to acknowledge the „equitable expectations“ of the investor's State as a factor constituting in itself a minimum of world public order, beyond the conflict of political ideologies.” Francioni, Compensation for Nationalisation of Foreign Property: The Borderline between Law and Equity, 24 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1975), S. 255, 268.

  48. 48.

    Muller, Compensation for Nationalization: A North-South Dialogue, 19 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (1981), S. 35, 45.

  49. 49.

    Schrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Ressources: Balancing Rights and Duties (1997), S. 34. Zu diesem Konflikt zwischen Iran und Großbritannien siehe auch ICJ, ICJ-Reports 1952, S. 93, 93 ff., in dem der IGH seine Jurisdiktion verneint hatte, da der in Rede stehende Konzessionsvertrag nicht unter Artikel 38 Absatz 1 IGH-Statut falle.

  50. 50.

    Siehe Teil I.

  51. 51.

    Zitiert nach García-Amador/Sohn/Baxter (Hrsg.), Recent Codification of the Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens (1974), S. 374. Dabei hatte Japan gegen diese Regelung gestimmt, da sie nicht von gerechter Entschädigung spreche; Pakistan hielt jede Form von Eigentumsentzug nur im nationalen Interesse oder aus Gemeinzweck für zulässig.

  52. 52.

    Siehe hierzu bereits Kapitel 9.

  53. 53.

    GA, UN Doc A/Res/1803 (XVII) (14. Dezember 1962); García-Amador, The Proposed New International Economic Order: A New Approach to the Law Governing Nationalization and Compensation, 12 Lawyer of The Americas (1980), S. 1, 29 f.

  54. 54.

    GA, UN Doc A/Res/1803 (XVII) (14. Dezember 1962), Rn. 4.

  55. 55.

    García-Amador, The Proposed New International Economic Order: A New Approach to the Law Governing Nationalization and Compensation, 12 Lawyer of The Americas (1980), S. 1, 21; Schwebel, The Story of the U.N.’s Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Ressources, 49 American Bar Association Journal (1963), S. 463, 469.

  56. 56.

    Siehe hierzu auch die Ausführungen bei Schwebel, The Story of the U.N.’s Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Ressources, 49 American Bar Association Journal (1963), S. 463, 468, sowie bei Gess, Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Ressources: An Analytical Review of the United Nations Declaration and its Genesis, 13 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1964), S. 398, 443 ff. Vgl. auch mit der Position von Bedjaoui unten.

  57. 57.

    GA, UN Doc A/Res/1803 (XVII) (14. Dezember 1962), Präambel.

  58. 58.

    Rosenne, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 285, 287.

  59. 59.

    García-Amador, The Proposed New International Economic Order: A New Approach to the Law Governing Nationalization and Compensation, 12 Lawyer of The Americas (1980), S. 1, 9.

  60. 60.

    García-Amador, UN Doc A/CN.4/96, ILC-Yearbook (1956, II), S. 173 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/106, ILC-Yearbook (1957, II), S. 104 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/111, ILC-Yearbook (1958, II), S. 47 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/119, ILC-Yearbook (1959, II), S. 1 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/125 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1960, II), S. 41 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/134 and Add. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1961, II), S. 1 ff. Siehe auch García-Amador/Sohn/Baxter (Hrsg.), Recent Codification of the Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens (1974).

  61. 61.

    García-Amador, The Proposed New International Economic Order: A New Approach to the Law Governing Nationalization and Compensation, 12 Lawyer of The Americas (1980), S. 1, 8 ff.

  62. 62.

    Sinha, New Nations and the Law of Nations (1967), S. 92.

  63. 63.

    Roy, Is the Law of Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens a Part of Universal International Law?, 55 The American Journal of International Law (1961), S. 863, 889.

  64. 64.

    Jessup, Responsibility of States for Injuries to Individuals, 46 Columbia Law Review (1946), S. 903, 906.

  65. 65.

    Weiler, An Historical Analysis on the Function of the Minimum Standard of Treatment in International Investment Law, in Weiler/Baetens (Hrsg.), New Directions in International Economic Law: In Memoriam Thomas Wälde (2001), S. 335, 357.

  66. 66.

    Siehe hierzu auch Weiler, An Historical Analysis on the Function of the Minimum Standard of Treatment in International Investment Law, in Weiler/Baetens (Hrsg.), New Directions in International Economic Law: In Memoriam Thomas Wälde (2001), S. 335, 357.

  67. 67.

    Siehe Crawford, State Responsibility, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2006), Rn. 6.

  68. 68.

    Jimenez de Aréchaga, UN Doc A/5509, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 237 ff.

  69. 69.

    Ago, UN Doc A/CN.4/217, Corr. 1 and Add. 1ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 125-156, 127, Rn. 5 f.; siehe Crawford, State Responsibility, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International law (2006), Rn. 7.

  70. 70.

    Castrén, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 290, 292.

  71. 71.

    Elias, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 282, 282, Rn. 3.

  72. 72.

    Bartoš, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 293, 294.

  73. 73.

    Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 260, 261, Rn. 15.

  74. 74.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 115 ff., Rn. 138 ff.

  75. 75.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 115, Rn. 138.

  76. 76.

    Siehe auch Bedjaoui, Problemès Récents de Succession d’Etats dans les Etats Nouveaux, 130 Recueil des Cours (1970, II), S. 457, 457 ff., in dem er den Begriff ebensowenig definiert.

  77. 77.

    Es ging für Bedjaoui stets um im Zusammenhang mit der Erteilung von Konzessionen entstandene Rechte. Er beschränkte sich hierbei jedoch nicht immer auf die Rechte natürlicher und juristischer Personen, sondern erfasste zumTeil auch jene von Staaten, wobei diese Aspekte nicht im Fokus der vorliegenden Studie liegen.

  78. 78.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 115, Rn. 139.

  79. 79.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 115, Rn. 141.

  80. 80.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 115, Rn. 142. Siehe hierzu sogleich näher.

  81. 81.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 115, Rn. 143.

  82. 82.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 115, Rn. 143.

  83. 83.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 115 f., Rn. 144 f.

  84. 84.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 115 f., Rn. 144.

  85. 85.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 116, Rn. 144.

  86. 86.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 116, Rn. 144 ff.

  87. 87.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 116, Rn. 146. Bedjaoui ergänzt in Fn. 57: „A similar consideration led the Algerian Government to call on mining companies to repatriate their assets situated outside Algeria before paying any compensation for the nationalization of nine mining companies, carried out pursuant to Ordinance No. 66-93 of 6 May 1966.”

  88. 88.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 115, Rn. 143.

  89. 89.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 115, Rn. 143. Siehe hierzu bereits oben.

  90. 90.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 116, Rn. 144, Fn. 54.

  91. 91.

    Das vor diesem Hintergund ebenso problematische Gegenkonzept zur PSNR wurde das Gemeinsame Erbe der Menschheit, siehe Raganathan, The Battle for International Law in the Decolonization Era, 1955-1975, Workshop, 5. – 7. November 2015 in Berlin.

  92. 92.

    Vgl. Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (2008), S. 212 ff.

  93. 93.

    Pahuja, Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (2011), S. 125.

  94. 94.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 116 f., Rn. 150 ff.

  95. 95.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 116, Rn. 145.

  96. 96.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 105 f., Rn. 75.

  97. 97.

    Wie im Verlauf der Diskussion noch deutlich werden sollte, war die Enteignung erworbener Rechte für Bedjaoui – entsprechend der Calvo-Doktrin und wie auch für das AALCC – eine rein nationale Angelegenheit; dies war für Bedjaoui jedoch ein völkerrechtlich verbürgtes Recht jedes Staates. Siehe unten.

  98. 98.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.961, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 105, 105, Rn. 8. Ähnlich auch Rosenne, ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.962, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 111, 114, Rn. 35.

  99. 99.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.961, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 105, 105 f., Rn. 22 f.

  100. 100.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.961, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 105, 106, Rn. 22.

  101. 101.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.961, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 105, 107, Rn. 23.

  102. 102.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.961, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 105, 109, Rn. 56.

  103. 103.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.961, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 105, 109, Rn. 53.

  104. 104.

    Siehe zu ähnlichen Klauseln bereits oben, Teil II sowie Kapitel 9.

  105. 105.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.961, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 105, 108, Rn. 35, 42.

  106. 106.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.963, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 118, 120, Rn. 19: „The international community intervened to prevent a de facto and necessarily provisional settlement — usually the outcome of an attempt by the colonial Power to maintain its prerogatives — from taking the place of a permanent solution of the problems of State succession. State succession in the context of decolonization therefore deserved special study.”

  107. 107.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.964, LC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 127, 128, Rn. 8.

  108. 108.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.964, LC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 123, 124, Rn. 19.

  109. 109.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.962, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 111, 117, Rn. 82.

  110. 110.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.962, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 111, 117, Rn. 81.

  111. 111.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.963, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 118, 121, Rn. 44. Bedjaoui erklärte hierzu: „He had thought he could begin with the problems of public property and public debts because they were important, because they also had a traditional aspect and because they had evolved sufficiently to provide material for the prediction of future trends. As that subject had seemed rather limited, he had thought of adding to it the whole associated field of concession rights and administrative contracts, in other words acquired rights, and then making a general study of succession to the various economic resources (‘moyens economiques’), which would include the question of the rights of peoples over their natural resources. The subject was certainly very broad and rather vague. Moreover, the translation of the wording into English seemed to present difficulties. The expression ‘economic interests’ would be even more vague, but at least economic interests could be contrasted with economic rights. The study of succession to economic resources would cover all the interests and rights involved.” ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.965, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 127, 128 f, Rn. 15.

  112. 112.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.964, LC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 123, 127, Rn. 46, 54;

  113. 113.

    Beispielsweise ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.965, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 127, 129, Rn. 21.

  114. 114.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.965, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 127, 129, Rn. 22, 27.

  115. 115.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.965, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 127, 130, Rn. 36, 38.

  116. 116.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 69.

  117. 117.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 71, Rn. 3.

  118. 118.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 71, Rn. 3.

  119. 119.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 71, Rn. 7.

  120. 120.

    Außerdem hielt Bedajoui den Begriff des erworbenen Rechts für zweifelhaft: Duguit habe die Frage aufgeworfen, was denn nicht-erworbene Rechte sein sollten. Bedjaoui belegte seinen Verweis auf Duguit dabei nicht. Außerdem werde die Idee erworbener Rechte im nationalen wie im internationalen Recht diskutiert, was die Debatte weiter verkompliziere, so Bedjaoui. Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 71, Rn. 7.

  121. 121.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 71, Rn. 7.

  122. 122.

    Siehe oben, Teil I.

  123. 123.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 72, Rn. 8.

  124. 124.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 72, Rn. 9. Bedjaoui verweist hierfür auch auf

  125. 125.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 72, Rn. 10.

  126. 126.

    Er erklärte, dass von manchen das Verbot rückwirkender Gesetze als Argument für das Konzept der erworbenen Rechte angeführt würde. Für Bedjaoui übersah diese Argumentation den Unterschied zwischen erworbenen Rechten, die mit Wirkung für die Zukunft aufgehoben werden dürften, und den Früchten solcher erworbenen Rechte, die in der Vergangenheit gezogen wurden und damit nicht rückwirkend annihiliert werden dürften. Des Weiteren seien Enteignungen auch im nationalen Recht zulässig. Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 72, Rn. 11 f.

  127. 127.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 72, Rn. 13.

  128. 128.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 74, Rn. 16; PCIJ, PCIJ-Series B No. 6, S. 5, 5 ff. Ähnlich verhielt es sich laut Bedjaoui mit einer Reihe anderer Urteile, siehe hierzu Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 85, Rn. 78.

  129. 129.

    Vgl. Zu deren Positionen oben, Kapitel 8.

  130. 130.

    Cavaglieri, La Notion des Droits Acquis et son Application en Droit International Public, 38 Revue Generale de Droit International Public (1931), S. 257, 296.

  131. 131.

    O'Connell, State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law, Band I (1967), S. 263.

  132. 132.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 73, Rn. 14.

  133. 133.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 89 f.

  134. 134.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 73, Rn. 15.

  135. 135.

    Bedjaouis Einlassungen zur souveränen Gleichheit sollen hier nochmals ausführlich dargestellt werden: Ausgangspunkt von Bedjaouis Überlegungen war dabei das Recht eines jeden Staates, frei über sein politisches, wirtschaftliches und gesellschaftliches System zu entscheiden. Da das politische System einer Gemeinschaft eng mit deren Verständnis von Eigentum verknüpft sei, könne ein Staat auch sein Eigentumssystem frei ändern. Hierin sah Bedjaoui einen Ausdruck der Souveränität des Staates. Nun stellte sich für Bedjaoui die Frage, ob das Prinzip der souveränen Gleichheit nicht dazu führen müsste, dass jeder Staat und damit auch ein neuer Staat das Recht haben müsse, sein Eigentumssystem frei zu wählen. Für die Frage der Gleichbehandlung wählte er zwei Vergleichsgruppen: Zunächst überlegte Bedjaoui, ob ein im Wege der Staatennachfolge entstandener neuer Staat auf Grund der souveränen Gleichheit zu nichts weiter verpflichtet wäre als jeder andere Staat, dass also keinerlei Pflichten mittels Staatennachfolge auf ihn übergingen. Eine solche mechanische Anwendung des Prinzips der souveränen Gleichheit hielt Bedjaoui jedoch für zu idealistisch, da der neue Staat in einem sozialen Kontext entstehe und sich nicht von Anfang an vollständig den bereits existierenden Regelungen entziehen könne. Der Nachfolgerstaat würde laut Bedjaoui übergangsweise das Recht seines Vorgängers anwenden und erst nach und nach einen Willen bilden, wie die nationale Rechtsordnung zukünftig zu gestalten sei.

    „This is the more specifically successional phase, during which the question of acquired rights arises, leading to a conflict between the free will of the successor State, which is anxious to change an old, alien juridical order, and the interests deriving from situations acquired under that juridical order. The problem then is to decide whether the will of the successor State must be respected by virtue of the equality and sovereignty of States, because the successor State is a State like any other, or whether it is to be limited, precisely because it is a successor State.” Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 76, Para. 23.

    Bedjaoui erwog also als zweites eine andere Interpretation des Prinzips der souveränen Gleichheit, nach welchem der neue Staat lediglich gleich behandelt werden müsse wie sein Vorgänger und nicht mit weitergehenden Pflichten belastet werden dürfe. Dies war für Bedjaoui problematisch, da die Souveränität des neuen Staates sich nicht von seinem Vorgänger ableite, sondern eine originäre sei. Da die Souveränität nicht transferiert wurde, sondern sich aus dem Völkerrecht selbst ergab und substituiert wurde, konnten in Bedjaouis Bild auch die Pflichten des Vorgängerstaates nicht auf den Nachfolgerstaat übertragen werden. Selbst wenn es sich jedoch um eine transferierte Souveränität handeln sollte und ein entsprechender rechtlicher Nexus zwischen altem und neuem Staat bestünde, dürften für den neuen Staat jedenfalls nicht weiterreichende Pflichten gelten als für seinen Vorgänger. Da aber der Vorgängerstaat das Recht gehabt hätte, die erworbenen Rechte ausländischer Staatsangehöriger mittels Enteignung zu entziehen, stünde dies dem neuen Staat jedenfalls ebenso zu. Denn der Vorgängerstaat hätte unumstrittener Weise keine völkerrechtliche Pflicht gehabt, erworbene Rechte zu achten; vielmehr galten hier nur die Normen des nationalen Rechts.

    „By some mysterious phenomenon of legal transmutation, however, these acquired rights, which derived from an obligation under municipal law for the predecessor State, become rights derived from an international obligation for the successor State.” Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 77, Para. 33.

    Da Bedjaoui keine Begründung für eine solche Transformation der innerstaatlichen Pflichten des Vorgängerstaates in internationale Verpflichtungen des Nachfolgerstaates finden konnte, erwog er eine weitere Ebene der Bindung der neuen Staaten:

    „It has been argued that the successor State is bound, not by an obligation derived from that of its predecessor, but by an obligation imposed ab exteriore by public international law, which would thus impose obligations on every new State, not by succession but through the application of a principle. Some States – it is maintained – come into being with special duties. Logically then, it is not acquired rights that constitute the basis of the obligation imposed on new States to respect the legal situations defined by the predecessor States. The successor State does not respect acquired rights simply because the predecessor State respected them; according to this theory, the attitude of the successor State is independent of that of the predecessor State. Even if it is admitted that the latter is entitled to reconsider the acquired rights which it has freely granted, a similar power would not necessarily be conferred on the successor State, upon which obligations would be imposed by international law.” Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 76, Para. 26.

    Diese Idee hatte zwar für Bedjaoui den Vorteil, dass sie von der Doktrin der erworbenen Rechte unabhängig war; allerdings etablierte sie für ihn ein System mit zwei Klassen von Staaten, das in jedem Fall der souveränen Gleichheit widersprach. Eine entsprechende völkergewohnheitsrechtliche Regel, welche die Pflichten des Vorgängerstaates auf den Nachfolgerstaat übergehen ließe, würde die Souveränität des Letzteren minderwertig erscheinen lassen. Deshalb ging Bedjaoui davon aus, dass der neue Staat nicht völkerrechtlich verpflichtet war, erworbene Rechte zu achten, diese gleichwohl aber im Eigeninteresse nicht völlig außer Acht lassen sollte.

    Siehe zum Ganzen Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 75 ff., Rn. 19 ff.

  136. 136.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 76 f., Rn. 24 ff.

  137. 137.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 77, Para. 33.

  138. 138.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 80, Rn. 49. Hierzu zitiert Bedjaoui wiederum Cavaglieri, La Notion des Droits Acquis et son Application en Droit International Public, 38 Revue Generale de Droit International Public (1931), S. 257, 284 ff.

  139. 139.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 80, Rn. 51 f.

  140. 140.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 81 f., Para 58.

  141. 141.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 82, Para 58.

  142. 142.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 82, Rn. 63.

  143. 143.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 82, Rn. 64.

  144. 144.

    Siehe oben.

  145. 145.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 82, Rn. 64 f.

  146. 146.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 82 f., Rn. 65.

  147. 147.

    So griff Bedjaoui die Auffassung auf, nach welcher der Nachfolgerstaat zwar grundsätzlich an die erworbenen Rechte gebunden sei, sich dieser jedoch unter Berufung auf seine Öffentliche Ordnung entledigen könnte. Bei dieser Theorie hörte Bedjaoui die Totenglocke der Doktrin der erworbenen Rechte läuten, da schließlich kein anderer als der Nachfolgerstaat selbst in der Position sei, zu bestimmen, was zur Aufrechterhaltung der öffentlichen Ordnung erforderlich sei. Diese Kompetenz ergab sich für Bedjaoui aus der staatlichen Souveränität. Außerdem konnten solche Akte nach der angloamerikanischen act of state-Doktrin auch nicht durch andere Staaten überprüft werden. Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 81 ff., Rn. 53 ff.

  148. 148.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 83, Rn. 69.

  149. 149.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 83, Rn. 67.

  150. 150.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 83, Rn. 71.

  151. 151.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 83, Rn. 70.

  152. 152.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 85, Rn. 81. Siehe hierzu schon oben.

  153. 153.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 86, Rn. 82.

  154. 154.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 86, Rn. 85.

  155. 155.

    Siehe oben.

  156. 156.

    Siehe oben.

  157. 157.

    Vgl. Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 88, Rn. 93.

  158. 158.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 87, Rn. 88.

  159. 159.

    Vgl. die umgekehrte Strategie in Kapitel 9.

  160. 160.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 87, Rn. 89.

  161. 161.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 87, Rn. 91.

  162. 162.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 88, Rn. 92. Als Beispiel zog Bedjaoui die Argumentation von Pillet heran: „In the case of the annexation of colonial peoples whom there can be no question of assimilating to the people of the metropolitan country because of the difference in social conditions, there is nothing to prevent and everything to commend the practice of drawing of a distinction between public policy in the colonies and public policy in the metropolitan country.” Vgl. Pillet, Principes de Droit International Prive, Pedone Paris (1903), S. 528.

  163. 163.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 88, Rn. 95.

  164. 164.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 88, Rn. 96.

  165. 165.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 88, Rn. 97.

  166. 166.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 89, Rn. 98.

  167. 167.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 89, Rn. 100.

  168. 168.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 90, Rn. 104.

  169. 169.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 90, Rn. 105.

  170. 170.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 90, Rn. 105 ff.

  171. 171.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 90, Rn. 107.

  172. 172.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 90, Rn. 107.

  173. 173.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 91, Rn. 108.

  174. 174.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 91, Rn. 110.

  175. 175.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 91, Rn. 111. Siehe oben.

  176. 176.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 91, Rn. 112.

  177. 177.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 91 f., Rn. 112.

  178. 178.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 92, Rn. 113.

  179. 179.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 92, Rn. 114. Siehe oben, Kapitel 2.

  180. 180.

    Vgl. Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 92, Rn. 115.

  181. 181.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 92, Rn. 112.

  182. 182.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 93, Rn. 117. Bedjaoui liefert hier keine Belege.

  183. 183.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 93, Rn. 120.

  184. 184.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 93, Rn. 120.

  185. 185.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 94, Rn. 121.

  186. 186.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 94, Rn. 121.

  187. 187.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 94, Rn. 122.

  188. 188.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 95, Rn. 127.

  189. 189.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 95, Rn. 129.

  190. 190.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 94, Rn. 125.

  191. 191.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 96, Rn. 132.

  192. 192.

    Siehe oben.

  193. 193.

    Vgl. Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 96, Rn. 134.

  194. 194.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 96, Rn. 134.

  195. 195.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 96, Rn. 134.

  196. 196.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 96, Rn. 134.

  197. 197.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 96, Rn. 134.

  198. 198.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 97, Rn. 137.

  199. 199.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 97, Rn. 138.

  200. 200.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 97, Rn. 139.

  201. 201.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 98, Rn. 140.

  202. 202.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 98, Rn. 141.

  203. 203.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 99, Rn. 144.

  204. 204.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 99, Rn. 145.

  205. 205.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 99, Rn. 146.

  206. 206.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 99, Rn. 147.

  207. 207.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 100, Rn. 156.

  208. 208.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1000, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 53, 56, Rn. 25.

  209. 209.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1000, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 53, 56, Rn. 25.

  210. 210.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1000, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 53, 56, Rn. 26 ff.

  211. 211.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1000, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 53, 57, Rn. 35.

  212. 212.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1000, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 53, 57, Rn. 36.

  213. 213.

    In diesem Zusammenhang hielt Tabibi eine ganze Reihe von Dokumenten für bedeutsam:

    „The Special Rapporteur had appropriately referred to the historic Declaration on permanent sovereignty over natural resources, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 1803 (XVII), but it was important to remember that that declaration was a complement to the famous Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). To those decisions must now be added the very recent Declaration on the prohibition of military, political or economic coercion in the conclusion of treaties adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties and annexed to the Final Act of that Conference and the resolution, relating to that same Declaration, whereby the Conference requested "the Secretary-General of the United Nations to bring the Declaration to the attention of all Member States and other States participating in the Conference, and of the principal organs of the United Nations". Those recent decisions were especially relevant because many of the acquired rights claimed by predecessor States had been procured by coercion, and hence by illegal means.” ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1000, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 53, 57, Rn. 37.

  214. 214.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1000, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 53, 57, Rn. 38.

  215. 215.

    So hätten auch die sozialistischen Staaten in den 1950er-Jahren eine Reihe von Kompensationsvereinbarungen abgeschlossen, dies jedoch ausschließlich im Sinne der friedlichen Koexistenz und der internationalen Handelsbeziehungen, ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1002, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 64, 64 f., Rn. 3 ff.

  216. 216.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1002, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 64, 64, Rn. 6.

  217. 217.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1002, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 64, 64, Rn. 7.

  218. 218.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1002, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 64, 65, Rn. 12.

  219. 219.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1005, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 73, 77 f., Rn. 46 ff.

  220. 220.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1006, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 78, 81, Rn. 21 f..

  221. 221.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1006, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 78, 81, Rn. 24 ff.

  222. 222.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1006, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 78, 81, Rn. 27. „As had already been said, in matters of that kind moral considerations could not be disregarded completely in appraising juridical situations. In that connexion the theory of the community of fortunes enunciated by the great Argentine jurist Podesta Costa was of interest. According to that theory, an alien who invested in a foreign country associated himself with that country for better or for worse. He expected to make a bigger profit than he would by investing in his own country. In most cases, that was possible because of the country's relative economic under-development. But economic under-development was almost always accompanied by greater political instability, and that involved risks for the alien. He could not claim the advantages without also accepting the disadvantages. Profits and risks were the same for aliens and nationals. The rights of aliens and of nationals must therefore be equal in everything, including, for example, nationalization and compensation.” ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1006, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 78, 81, Rn. 28. Castañeda liefert für seine Aussage keinen Beleg. Vgl. auch die insagsamt sehr ähnliche Position des Argentiniers José María Ruda, ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1006, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 78, 82, Rn. 38.

  223. 223.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1003, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 66, 67, Rn. 12. Tammes verwies dabei auf das Urteil im Nordseefestlandsockel-Fall, in welchem der IGH sich zum Verhältnis von Gleichheit und Gerechtigkeit geäußert hatte. Demnach impliziere Gerechtigkeit nicht notwendig Gleichheit; es gehe nicht um eine Umgestaltung der Natur, sondern darum, in Situation der Quasi-Gleichheit einer Gruppe von Staaten die Wirkung zufälliger Besonderheiten, aus denen eine ungerechtfertigte Ungleichbehandlung resultieren könne, zu verringern. Diese auf geographische Begebenheiten bezogene Äußerung des IGH hielt Tammes auch in Bezug auf die historische Entwicklung der Wohlstandsverteilung für einschlägig, welche für die Zukunft gewandelt werden könnte. ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1003, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 66, 67 f., Rn. 12 ff. Zu den Implikationen dieses Falls für das Investitionsschutzrecht siehe auch Francioni, Compensation for Nationalisation of Foreign Property: The Borderline between Law and Equity, 24 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1975), S. 255, 256 f.

  224. 224.

    International Law Commission, Summary Record of the 1003rd Meeting, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1003, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1969, I), S. 66, 68, Rn. 20.

  225. 225.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 58, Rn. 3.

  226. 226.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 58, Rn. 5.

  227. 227.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 58, Rn. 8.

  228. 228.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 58, Rn. 8.

  229. 229.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 59, Rn. 15.

  230. 230.

    Z.B. Castrén, ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 62, Rn. 39; Tammes und Reuter, ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1003, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 66, 68, Rn. 21, S. 69, Rn. 13; Waldock, ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1005, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 73, 75, Rn. 19.

  231. 231.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 59, Rn. 17 f.

  232. 232.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 59 f., Rn. 18 ff.

  233. 233.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 60, Rn. 22.

  234. 234.

    Kearney erklärte: „In his argument, the Special Rapporteur had relied heavily on General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII), on permanent sovereignty over natural resources. For example, in paragraph 135, he had said that in one of the preambular paragraphs of that resolution, "the right to compensation in the case of succession by decolonization was excluded", and had added: "The United Nations thus showed its awareness of the special nature of succession in the case of newly independent States and indicated the course to be followed in the work of codification and progressive development of international law, with a view to arriving at a positive law of non-compensation". Again, in paragraph 110, he had described that resolution as "the charter of combat of the poor against the rich"; that was certainly pejorative language to use in what purported to be a balanced and non-partisan report on the international law of State succession.” ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 61, Rn. 31.

  235. 235.

    Siehe ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 61, Rn. 33.

  236. 236.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 61, Rn. 32.

  237. 237.

    „And the history of the paragraph showed that the Special Rapporteur's interpretation was patently erroneous, since when the text had been discussed in the Second Committee, the Algerian delegation had proposed a paragraph reading: "Considering that the obligations of international law cannot apply to alleged rights acquired before the accession to full national sovereignty of formerly colonized countries and that, consequently, such alleged acquired rights must be subject to review as between equally sovereign States,". If that proposal had been accepted, there would have been some justification for the conclusion reached by the Special Rapporteur, but it had in fact been withdrawn and the fifth paragraph of the preamble had been adopted as it now stood. The lack of any reference in the report to a series of events which had a direct bearing on that paragraph must be regarded as a serious defect.” ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 61, Rn. 32.

  238. 238.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 61, Rn. 34.

  239. 239.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 62, Rn. 34.

  240. 240.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1008, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 90, 93, Rn. 18.

  241. 241.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 62, Rn. 35.

  242. 242.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 62, Rn. 36.

  243. 243.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 62, Rn. 37 f.

  244. 244.

    Praxis und Literatur sprachen für Castrén überwiegend für den Schutz erworbener Rechte, wobei Details sicherlich strittig seien. Die erworbenen Rechte anderer Staatsangehöriger könnten nur unter bestimmten Umständen wie der gezielten Benachteiligung des Nachfolgerstaates, Konflikten mit dessen Öffentlicher oder Gesellschaftsordnung und aus Allgemeininteresse beendigt werden; in diesen Fällen sei jedoch eine den Umständen entsprechende Entschädigung zu zahlen, wobei „the amount should be equitable and payment prompt, in convertible, not depreciated, currency”. ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 62 f., Rn. 39 ff.

  245. 245.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 63, Rn. 44 f. Ähnlich argumentierte beispielsweise McDougal, für den sich der der internationale Mindeststandard aus den Menschenrechten ergibt. Siehe McDougal/Lasswell/Chen, The Protection of Aliens from Discrimination and World Public Order: Responsibility of States Conjoined with Human Rights, 20 American Journal of International Law (1976), S. 432, 432 ff.

  246. 246.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 62, Rn. 47.

  247. 247.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1005, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 73, 76, Rn. 26.

  248. 248.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1003, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 66, 68, Rn. 23.

  249. 249.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1003, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 66, 68, Rn. 23.

  250. 250.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1003, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 66, 69, Rn. 33.

  251. 251.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1005, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 73, 73, Rn. 3.

  252. 252.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1005, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 73, 73, Rn. 4.

  253. 253.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1005, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 73, 74, Rn. 13.

  254. 254.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1005, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 73, 74, Rn. 14.

  255. 255.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1005, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 73, 75, Rn. 19.

  256. 256.

    Siehe beispielsweise Waldock und Castrén ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1005, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 73, 75, Rn. 21, S. 76, Rn. 31.

  257. 257.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1005, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 73, 76 f., Rn. 34 ff.

  258. 258.

    Siehe oben, Teil II.

  259. 259.

    Tabibi meinte, es gebe bereits ein Organ der Vereinten Nationen, das sich dieses Themas annehme, nämlich die Commission on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, welche die Generalversammlung durch Resolution 1314 (XIII) eingesetzt hatte. Obwohl die Arbeit dieser Kommission in Generalversammlungsresolution 1803 (XVII) gemündet hatte und seitdem nicht mehr zusammengekommen war, schien ihre Wiederbelebung Tabibi nicht ausgeschlossen, so dass er einen Kompetenzkonflikt zwischen ILC und Generalversammlung befürchtete. Siehe ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1005, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 73, 76 f., Rn. 36 ff. Ähnlich äußerte sich auch Rosenne, der Streit in der ILC und der Generalversammlung abwenden wollte, siehe ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1007, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 85, 86, Rn. 4 ff. Siehe ebenfalls Singh, ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1007, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 85, 89, Rn. 26.

  260. 260.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1005, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 73, 77, Rn. 41. Ähnlich auch der Japaner Senjin Tsuruoka, ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1007, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 85, 88, Rn. 18, und Luis Ignacio-Pinto aus Benin, ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1008, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 90, 91, Rn. 3 ff.

  261. 261.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1006, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 78, 83 f., Rn. 48 ff.

  262. 262.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1006, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 78, 83, Rn. 50.

  263. 263.

    „[I]n order to redress the wrongs suffered by colonized peoples, all that was needed was to calculate the compensation in an appropriate manner. With some concessions, it would be reasonable, when deciding whether the concession holders were entitled to compensation, to calculate how much the concession had yielded as a going concern. The result would nearly always be quite fair.” ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1006, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 78, 84, Rn. 58.

  264. 264.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1006, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 78, 80, Rn. 17.

  265. 265.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1008, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 90, 95, Rn. 48.

  266. 266.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1009, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 95, 96, Rn. 22.

  267. 267.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1009, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 95, 96 f., Rn. 22 ff.

  268. 268.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1009, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 95, 97, Rn. 28.

  269. 269.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1009, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 95, 97, Rn. 29.

  270. 270.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1009, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 95, 97, Rn. 29.

  271. 271.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1009, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 95, 100, Rn. 54, 62.

  272. 272.

    Ausgegangen war diese Veränderung von UNCTAD unter dem maßgeblichen Einfluss einiger Staaten Lateinamerikas und Afrikas. Die UNCTAD hatte im Jahr 1972 unter Berufung auf die permanente Souveränität über natürliche Ressourcen aller Staaten beschlossen, „in the application of this principle, such measures of nationalization as States may adopt in order to recover their natural resources, are the expression of a sovereign power in virtue of which it is for each State to fix the amount of compensation and the procedure for these measures, and any dispute which may arise in that connection falls within the sole jurisdiction of its courts, without prejudice to what is set forth in General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII).” Zitiert in García-Amador, The Proposed New International Economic Order: A New Approach to the Law Governing Nationalization and Compensation, 12 Lawyer of The Americas (1980), S. 1, 23. Die Resolution 88 (XIII) des Trade and Development Boards der UNCTAD unterstellte die Bestimmung der Höhe der zu zahlenden Entschädigung ebenso wie Streitigkeiten hierüber allein dem nationalen Recht des Gaststaates. Ähnliche Positionen nahmen die Bewegung Blockfreier Staaten sowie viele Länder Lateinamerikas in dieser Zeit an, siehe García-Amador, The Proposed New International Economic Order: A New Approach to the Law Governing Nationalization and Compensation, 12 Lawyer of The Americas (1980), S. 1, 31 f. Zur Ölkrise siehe Pahuja, Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (2011), S. 95.

  273. 273.

    „[…] Affirms that the application of the principle of nationalization carried out by States, as an expression of their sovereignty in order to safeguard their natural resources, implies that each State is entitled to determine the amount of possible compensation and the mode of payment, and that any disputes which might arise should be settled in accordance with the national legislation of each State carrying out such measures […].” GA, UN Doc A/Res/3171 (XXVIII) (1973), Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Ressources (17. Dezember 1973), Rn. 3.

  274. 274.

    Bedjaoui, Sixth Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, UN Doc A/CN.4/267, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1973, II) S. 3, 10, 24. Mit dieser Definition erfasste Bedjaoui sowohl öffentliche als auch private erworbene Rechte.

  275. 275.

    „No attempt will be made in the present article to deal with the complex of problems the successor State faces with regard to concessions granted by its predecessor. One aspect of these problems, which will not be dwelt on here, was taken up by the Special Rapporteur in his second report, "Economic and financial acquired rights and State succession".” Bedjaoui, Sixth Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, UN Doc A/CN.4/267, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1973, II) S. 3, 24 f., Rn. 2.

  276. 276.

    Bedjaoui, Sixth Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, UN Doc A/CN.4/267, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1973, II) S. 3, 25, Rn. 2.

  277. 277.

    Bedjaoui, Sixth Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, UN Doc A/CN.4/267, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1973, II) S. 3, 25, Rn. 2.

  278. 278.

    Bedjaoui, Sixth Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, UN Doc A/CN.4/267, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1973, II) S. 3, 25 f., Rn. 3 ff.

  279. 279.

    Bedjaoui, Sixth Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, UN Doc A/CN.4/267, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1973, II) S. 3, 26 f., Rn. 12.

  280. 280.

    Bedjaoui, Sixth Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, UN Doc A/CN.4/267, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1973, II) S. 3, 27, Rn. 14.

  281. 281.

    Siehe dazu oben.

  282. 282.

    Für diese Interpretation von Bedjaouis Verhalten sprechen auch seine abschließenden Worte in Artikel 10:

    „In fact, in the context of the present articles, which, it should be remembered, concern public property, the Special Rapporteur cannot take up the problem of concessions in all their aspects (some of which relate to the succession of States in respect of legislation, while others concern the questions of acquired rights and international responsibility). The concession contract gives rise not only to rights but also to obligations, and at a subsequent stage it will be necessary to specify the way in which succession of States influences the fate of those obligations. […]

    The Special Rapporteur considers, however, that the approach which has made it possible to define the rights of the conceding authority as not deriving from subrogation, succession or transfer will subsequently provide a basis for resolving the problem of obligations. If the concession is the expression of a sovereign act of the public power, that is a voluntary commitment to an individual or a State which is the beneficiary of the concession, the International Law Commission knows how to approach this commitment or, in other words, this consent to be bound. No matter how a concession may differ in nature from a treaty (and they do not differ at all when the concession is granted in a treaty), it would be advisable to envisage applying to concessions, mutatis mutandis, the same rules adopted for treaties in the draft articles on succession of States in respect of treaties.” Bedjaoui, Sixth Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, UN Doc A/CN.4/267, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1973, II) S. 3, 27, Rn. 15, 17. Zu den Regelungen zur Staatennachfolge in Verträge für ehemalige Kolonien siehe oben, Kapitel 8.

  283. 283.

    García-Amador, The Proposed New International Economic Order: A New Approach to the Law Governing Nationalization and Compensation, 12 Lawyer of The Americas (1980), S. 1, 2. Zur Neuen Weltwirtschaftsordnung und dem Globalsolidarsichen Projekt siehe auch oben, Teil I.

  284. 284.

    „Each State has the right:

    a. To regulate and exercise authority over foreign investment within its national jurisdiction in accordance with its laws and regulations and in conformity with its national objectives and priorities. No State shall be compelled to grant preferential treatment to foreign investment;

    b. To regulate and supervise the activities of transnational corporations within its national jurisdiction and take measures to ensure that such activities comply with its laws, rules and regulations and conform with its economic and social policies. Transnational corporations shall not intervene in the internal affairs of a host State. Every State should, with full regard for its sovereign rights, cooperate with other States in the exercise of the right set forth in this subparagraph;

    c. To nationalize, expropriate or transfer ownership of foreign property, in which case appropriate compensation should be paid by the State adopting such measures, taking into account its relevant laws and regulations and all circumstances that the State considers pertinent. In any case where the question of compensation gives rise to a controversy, it shall be settled under the domestic law of the nationalizing State and by its tribunals, unless it is freely and mutually agreed by all States concerned that other peaceful means be sought on the basis of the sovereign equality of States and in accordance with the principle of free choice of means.” GA, UN Doc A/Res/3281 (XXIX) (12. Dezember 1974), Artikel 2 Absatz 2. In der NWWO-Charta wurde letztlich in vielen Punkten die Calvo-Doktrin umgesetzt. Siehe hierzu ausführlich García-Amador, The Proposed New International Economic Order: A New Approach to the Law Governing Nationalization and Compensation, 12 Lawyer of The Americas (1980), S. 1, 32 ff.

  285. 285.

    García-Amador, The Proposed New International Economic Order: A New Approach to the Law Governing Nationalization and Compensation, 12 Lawyer of The Americas (1980), S. 1, 50 f.

  286. 286.

    Carasco, A Nationalization Compensation Framework in the New International Economic Order, 49 Third World Legal Studies (1983), S. 49, 52.

  287. 287.

    Siehe hierzu schon oben, Teil I.

  288. 288.

    Siehe Carasco, A Nationalization Compensation Framework in the New International Economic Order, 49 Third World Legal Studies (1983), S. 49, 50 f.

  289. 289.

    Bedjaoui, Seventh Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, UN Doc A/CN.4/282, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1974, II, 1) S. 91, 98.

  290. 290.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1320, ILC-Yearbook (1975, I), S. 82, 86, Rn. 35.

  291. 291.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1320, ILC-Yearbook (1975, I), S. 82, 87, Rn. 40 f.

  292. 292.

    Vgl. ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1320, ILC-Yearbook (1975, I), S. 82, 87 f., Rn. 46.

  293. 293.

    Statt aller siehe beispielsweise der Peruaner Juan José Calle y Calle, ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1320, ILC-Yearbook (1975, I), S. 82, 87, Rn. 44; der Norweger Edvard Hambro, ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1321, ILC-Yearbook (1975, I), S. 88, 88, Rn. 2.

  294. 294.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1321, ILC-Yearbook (1975, I), S. 88, 90, Rn. 23.

  295. 295.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1321, ILC-Yearbook (1975, I), S. 88, 91, Rn. 27.

  296. 296.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1692, ILC-Yearbook (1981, I), S. 261, 270 f., Rn. 87.

  297. 297.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1692, ILC-Yearbook (1981, I), S. 261, 271, Rn. 90.

  298. 298.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1694, ILC-Yearbook (1981, I), S. 278, 282, Rn. 34.

  299. 299.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1694, ILC-Yearbook (1981, I), S. 278, 282, Rn. 36.

  300. 300.

    ILC, UN Doc A/36/10, ILC-Yearbook (1981, II), S. 1, 24.

  301. 301.

    Der andere Vorschlag kam von der syrischen Delegation, welche vorschlug, an Artikel 6 folgenden Halbsatz anzuhängen:

    „especially the rights of national liberation movements to request that measures be taken to safeguard the rights of the peoples they represent, in the light of the right of self-determination and the principle of permanent sovereignty of every people over its wealth and natural resources.” UN Conference on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts, UN Doc A/CONF.117/C.1/L.36, Meeting Records (1983), S. 117.

    Der syrische Delegierte zog den Änderungsvorschlag jedoch ohne Begründung wieder zurück. UN Conference on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts, UN Doc A/CONF.117/C.1/SR.40, Meeting Records (1983), S. 250, 254, Rn. 69.

  302. 302.

    UN Conference on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts, UN Doc A/CONF.117/C.1/L.43, Meeting Records (1983), S. 117.

  303. 303.

    Siehe oben, Kapitel 9.

  304. 304.

    UN Conference on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts, UN Doc A/CONF.117/C.1/SR.40, Meeting Records (1983), S. 250, 255, Rn. 94.

  305. 305.

    UN Conference on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts, UN Doc A/CONF.117/SR.6, Meeting Records (1983), S. 8, 11, Rn. 35.

  306. 306.

    „In favour: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ecuador, Egypt, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Islamic Republic of, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Senegal, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire.

    Against: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Unitd States of America.

    Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden.” UN Conference on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts, UN Doc A/CONF.117/SR.10, Meeting Records (1983), S. 25, 31, Rn. 62.

  307. 307.

    Siehe Kapitel 9.

  308. 308.

    Die WKSVAS hat 7 Vertragsparteien und 7 weitere Staaten haben die WKSVAS unterzeichnet.

  309. 309.

    Koskenniemi, Report of the Director of Studies of the English-speaking Section of the Centre, in Eisemann/Koskenniemi (Hrsg.), Hague Academy of International Law: State Succession: Codification Tested against the Facts (2000), S. 65, 106.

  310. 310.

    Vgl. Schrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Ressources: Balancing Rights and Duties (1997), S. 181.

  311. 311.

    Shoyele, Acquired Rights, State Succession and the African States: Perspectives in International Law, 10 Sri Lanka Journal of International Law (1998), S. 243, 249. Shoyele folgte hier interessanterweise der westlichen Stabilitätsargumentation. In Bezug auf die Position, welche Bedjaoui und viele seiner Zeitgenossen in der Dritten Welt in Bezug auf die Theorie der erworbenen Rechte vertraten, meinte er:

    „This school opines that to seek to compel the successor State to recognize such rights is presumptive of a position that the successor State is unequal and most probably inferior, to the predecessor State; this to all intents and purposes will be a negation of the doctrine respecting equality of States. Consequent upon this, they recommended that the doctrine should be overboard because all legal interests which do not derive from the sovereignty of the State against which they are being invoked cease to subsist. […] However, it is a stark and indisputable reality that if such a philosophy is allowed to prevail, aside the adverse effects on the predecessor States, the successor States and / or private individuals involved, the whole community of nations will suffer a vast disruption in the political, social and economic stability of the whole international regime.” Shoyele, Acquired Rights, State Succession and the African States: Perspectives in International Law, 10 Sri Lanka Journal of International Law (1998), S. 243, 250 f.

  312. 312.

    Von Bernstorff, Das Recht auf Entwicklung, in Dann/Kadelbach/Kaltenborn (Hrsg.), Entwicklung und Recht: Eine systematische Einführung (2014), S. 71, 88 f. Vgl. auch Pahuja, Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (2011), S. 168; Schrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Ressources: Balancing Rights and Duties (1997), S. 183 ff.

  313. 313.

    Visser, The Prinicple of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Ressource and the Nationalisation of Foreign Interests, 21 Comparative and International Law Journal of South Africa (1988), S. 76, 86 ff.

  314. 314.

    Pahuja, Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (2011), S. 152 f.; Sornarajah, The International Law on Foreign Investment (1994), S. 357 ff.; Muller, Compensation for Nationalization: A North-South Dialogue, 19 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (1981), S. 35, 37.

  315. 315.

    Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (2008), S. 222.

  316. 316.

    Rajagopal, International Law from Below: Development, Social Movements, and Third World Resistance (2003), S. 14; Pahuja, Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (2011), S. 95, Fn. 1.

  317. 317.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 5.

  318. 318.

    O’Connell, Reflections on the State Succession Convention, 39 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (1979), S. 725, 725; Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 16.

  319. 319.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 1 f.

  320. 320.

    Koskenniemi, Report of the Director of Studies of the English-speaking Section of the Centre, in Eisemann/Koskenniemi (Hrsg.), Hague Academy of International Law: State Succession: Codification Tested against the Facts (2000), S. 65, 103.

  321. 321.

    Koskenniemi, Report of the Director of Studies of the English-speaking Section of the Centre, in Eisemann/Koskenniemi (Hrsg.), Hague Academy of International Law: State Succession: Codification Tested against the Facts (2000), S. 65, 104; O’Connell, Reflections on the State Succession Convention, 39 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (1979), S. 725, 738.

  322. 322.

    Duruigbo, Permanent Sovereignty and Peoples’ Ownership of Natural Ressources in Intrntionl Law, 36 George Washington International Law Review (2006), S. 33, 34.

  323. 323.

    Koskenniemi, Report of the Director of Studies of the English-speaking Section of the Centre, in Eisemann/Koskenniemi (Hrsg.), Hague Academy of International Law: State Succession: Codification Tested against the Facts (2000), S. 65, 96.

Quellenverzeichnis

  • Ago, Roberto: UN Doc A/CN.4/217, Corr. 1 and Add. 1, First Report on State Responsibility Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1969, II), S. 125–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartoš, Milan: UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, Memorandum, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1963, II), S. 293-297

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedjaoui, Mohammed: UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, First Report on Succession of States in Respect of Rights and Duties resulting from Sources other than Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1968, II), S. 94-117

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedjaoui, Mohammed: UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV.1, Second Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1969, II), S. 69-100

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedjaoui, Mohammed: UN Doc A/CN.4/267, Sixth Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1973, II), S. 3-73

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedjaoui, Mohammed: UN Doc A/CN.4/282, Seventh Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1974, II, 1), S. 91-115

    Google Scholar 

  • Castrén, Erik: UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, Memorandum, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1963, II), S. 290-293

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, Taslim Olawale: UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, Memorandum, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1963, II), S. 282-284

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Amador, F.V.: UN Doc A/CN.4/106, Second Report on International Responsibility, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1957, II), S. 104-130

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Amador, F.V.: UN Doc A/CN.4/111, Third Report on International Responsibility, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1958, II), S. 47-73

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Amador, F.V.: UN Doc A/CN.4/119, Fourth Report on International Responsibility, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1959, II), S. 1-36

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Amador, F.V.: UN Doc A/CN.4/125 and Corr. 1, Fifth Report on International Responsibility, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1960, II), S. 41-68

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Amador, F.V.: UN Doc A/CN.4/134 and Add. 1, Sixth Report on International Responsibility, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1961, II), S. 1-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Amador, F.V.: UN Doc A/CN.4/96, First Report on International Responsibility, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1956, II), S. 173-231

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly, UN Doc A/Res/3171 (XXVIII) (1973), Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Ressources (17. Dezember 1973)

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/36/10, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Thirty-third Session, 4 May – 24 July 1981, Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1981, II, 2), S. 1-204

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1000, Summary Record of the 1000th Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1969, I), S. 53-57

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, Summary Record of the 1001st Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1969, I), S. 57-64

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1002, Summary Record of the 1002nd Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1969, I), S. 64-65

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1003, Summary Record of the 1003rd Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1969, I), S. 65-69

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1005, Summary Record of the 1005th Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1969, I), S. 73-78

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1006, Summary Record of the 1006th Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1969, I), S. 78-85

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1007, Summary Record of the 1007th Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1969, I), S. 85-90

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1008, Summary Record of the 1008th Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1969, I), S. 90-95

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1009, Summary Record of the 1009th Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1969, I), S. 95-100

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1320, Summary Record of the 1320th Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1975, I), S. 82-88

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1321, Summary Record of the 1321st Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1975, I), S. 88-93

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1692, Summary Record of the 1692nd Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1981, I), S. 261-273

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1694, Summary Record of the 1694th Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1981, I), S. 278-288

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.961, Summary Record of the 961st Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1968, I), S. 105-111

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.962, Summary Record of the 962nd Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1968, I), S. 111-117

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.963, Summary Record of the 963rd Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1968, I), S. 118-122

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.964, Summary Record of the 964th Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1968, I), S. 123-127

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.965, Summary Record of the 965th Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1968, I), S. 127-133

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez de Aréchaga, Eduardo: UN Doc A/5509, Memoranda Submitted by Members of the Sub-Committee on State Responsibility, Report of the International Law Commission Covering the Work of its Fifteenth Session, 6 May – 12 July 1963, with annexes, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1963, II), S. 237-244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachs, Manfred: UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, Report by the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1963, II), S. 260-299

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne, Shabtai: UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, Memorandum, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1963, II), S. 285-290

    Google Scholar 

  • Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, Summary Record of the 4th Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1963, II), S. 263-266

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Conference on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts, UN Doc A/CONF.117/SR.10, Vienna, 1 March – 8 April 1983, Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the Committee of the Whole, 10th Plenary Meeting, S. 25-39

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Conference on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts, UN Doc A/CONF.117/SR.6, Vienna, 1 March – 8 April 1983, Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the Committee of the Whole, 6th Plenary Meeting, S. 8-14

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Conference on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts, UN Doc A/CONF.117/C.1/SR.40, Vienna, 1 March – 8 April 1983, Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the Committee of the Whole, 40th Meeting of the Committee of the Whole, S. 250-256

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Conference on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts, UN Doc A/CONF.117/C.1/L.36, Vienna, 1 March – 8 April 1983, Official Records, Documents of the Conference, Amendment by the Syrian Arab Republic, S. 117

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Conference on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts, UN Doc A/CONF.117/C.1/L.43, Vienna, 1 March – 8 April 1983, Official Records, Documents of the Conference, Amendment by Brazil, S. 117

    Google Scholar 

Literatur

  • Anand, Ram Prakash: New States and International Law, Vikas Publishing House PVT LTD Delhi/Bombay/Bangalore/Kanpur/London (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  • Anghie, Antony: Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law, Cambridge University Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedjaoui, Mohammed: Problèmes Récents de Succession d’Etats dans les Etats Nouveaux, 130 Recueil des Cours (1970, II), S. 455–586

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bernstorff, Jochen: Das Recht auf Entwicklung, in Dann, Philipp/Kadelbach, Stefan/Kaltenborn, Markus (Hrsg.): Entwicklung und Recht: Eine systematische Einführung, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft Baden-Baden (2014), S. 71–99

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carasco, Emily: A Nationalization Compensation Framework in the New International Economic Order, 49 Third World Legal Studies (1983), S. 49–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavaglieri, Arrigo: La Notion des Droits Acquis et son Application en Droit International Public, 38 Revue Generale de Droit International Public (1931), S. 257–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Craven, Matthew: The Decolonialization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties, Oxford University Press (2007)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, James R.: State Responsibility, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Duruigbo, Emeka: Permanent Sovereignty and Peoples’ Ownership of Natural Ressources in International Law, 36 George Washington International Law Review (2006), S. 33–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisemann, Pierre Michel/Koskenniemi, Martti (Hrsg.): Hague Academy of International Law: State Succession: Codification Tested against the Facts, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Den Haag/Boston/London (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • Feilchenfeld, Ernst H.: Public Debts and State Succession, The Macmillan Company New York (1931)

    Google Scholar 

  • Francioni, Francesco: Compensation for Nationalisation of Foreign Property: The Borderline between Law and Equity, 24 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1975), S. 255–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Samy: Expropriation in International Law, Stevens and Sons Limited (1953)

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Amador, F. V./Sohn, Louis B./Baxter, R. R. (Hrsg.): Recent Codification of the Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens, A. W. Sijthoff Leiden (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Amador, F. V.: The Proposed New International Economic Order: A New Approach to the Law Governing Nationalization and Compensation, 12 Lawyer of the Americas (1980), S. 1–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Gess, Karol N.: Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Ressources: An Analytical Review of the United Nations Declaration and its Genesis, 13 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1964), S. 398–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessup, Philip C.: Responsibility of States for Injuries to Individuals, 46 Columbia Law Review (1946), S. 903–928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, F. Allan: Nationalization: Effective Compensation and International Law, 4 Virginia Journal of International Law (1964), S. 97–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi, Martti: Report of the Director of Studies of the English-speaking Section of the Centre, in Eisemann, Pierre Michel/Koskenniemi, Martti (Hrsg.): Hague Academy of International Law: State Succession: Codification Tested against the Facts, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Den Haag/Boston/London (2000), S. 65–132

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht, Hersch: Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law: With Special Reference to International Arbitration, Longmans, Green and Co. London (1927)

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougal, Myres S./Lasswell, Harold D./Chen, Lung-Chu: The Protection of Aliens from Discrimination and World Public Order: Responsibility of States Conjoined with Human Rights, 20 American Journal of International Law (1976), S. 432–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, Maarten H.: Compensation for Nationalization: A North-South Dialogue, 19 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (1981), S. 3578

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, Daniel Patrick: Recent Problems of State Succession in Relation to New States, 130 Recueil des Cours (1970), S. 95–206

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, Daniel Patrick: Reflections on the State Succession Convention, 39 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (1979), S. 725–739

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, Daniel Patrick: State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law, Band I, Cambridge University Press (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, Daniel Patrick: The Law of State Succession, Cambridge University Press (1956)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohler, Christoph: Concessions, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oschmann, Friedrich: Calvo-Doktrin und Calvo-Klauseln: Wechselnde Realitäten im Internationalen Wirtschaftsrecht Lateinamerikas, Deutscher Fachverlag Frankfurt am Main (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahuja, Sundhya: Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality, Cambridge University Press New York (2011)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pillet, Antoine: Principes de Droit International Prive, Pedone Paris (1903)

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, S. N. Guha: Is the Law of Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens a Part of Universal International Law?, 55 The American Journal of International Law (1961), S. 863–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrijver, Nico: Sovereignty over Natural Ressources: Balancing Rights and Duties, Cambridge University Press (1997)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schwebel, Stephen M.: The Story of the U.N.’s Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Ressources, 49 American Bar Association Journal (1963), S. 463–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoyele, Olugbenga: Acquired Rights, State Succession and the African States: Perspectives in International Law, 10 Sri Lanka Journal of International Law (1998), S. 243–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, Prakash S.: New Nations and the Law of Nations, A. W. Sijthoff Leyden (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy: The International Law on Foreign Investment, Cambridge University Press (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • De Visscher, Charles: Théories et Réalités en Droit International Public, Édition A. Pedoné Paris (1953)

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser, Fritz: The Prinicple of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Ressource and the Nationalisation of Foreign Interests, 21 Comparative and International Law Journal of South Africa (1988), S. 76–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, Todd/Baetens, Freya (Hrsg.): New Directions in International Economic Law: In Memoriam Thomas Wälde, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Leiden/Boston (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, Todd: An Historical Analysis on the Function of the Minimum Standard of Treatment in International Investment Law, in Weiler, Todd/Baetens, Freya (Hrsg.): New Directions in International Economic Law: In Memoriam Thomas Wälde, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Leiden/Boston (2001), S. 335–381

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wiesbaden, Deutschland

    Anna Krueger

Authors
  1. Anna Krueger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., to be exercised by Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Published by Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Krueger, A. (2018). Kapitel 10: Erworbene Rechte in der WKSVAS. In: Die Bindung der Dritten Welt an das postkoloniale Völkerrecht. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 264. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54413-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54413-6_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-54412-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-54413-6

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation