Abstract
In our study we have attempted to trace the standards applied by the courts to questions of confiscation. We have weighed the pros and cons of these standards. Some decisions proved to have confined themselves to the case at issue; in others, however, more general principles were laid down. Since legislation on this point is lacking in most countries we framed some rules which should be regarded as self-supporting rules of private international law. Several decisions rendered valuable support to our opinion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, I, 318.
Annuaire 1950 (Bath) I, 42; 1952 (Siena) II, 251.
An argumentum a contrario is not presented by the fact that after World War II several compensation-agreements came into force where compensation was not sufficient. Here the reasoning was rather that half a loaf was better than no bread; cf. also Kollewijn, N.J.B. 1954, 452.
Annuaire 1950 (Bath) I, 102.
Private versus public international law, A.J.I.L. 1942, 448.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1956 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam., Adriaanse, P. (1956). Epilogue. In: Confiscation in Private International Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8915-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8915-6_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8240-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-8915-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive