Abstract
Even before the Second World War there was a tendency, especially in Germany, to draw distinctions within the general system of law and to consider under a special heading what was called “economic law”, comprising commercial law and certain kindred topics.1 This tendency departed greatly from the classical attitude, which regarded commercial law as a province of civil law; the new trend looked principally to the end in view, namely the regulation of the economy as a whole.2 In addition to the legal rules governing private commercial activity, this “economic law” was thought to comprise a series of provisions coming under public law and dealing in particular with compulsory contracts, and with State control and economic intervention. But it can hardly be said that, even in Germany, economic law was clearly defined.3
“This is not to suppress title; it is merely to open the way to the discussion of title.”
A. de la Pradelle, Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit international, Bath Session, 1950, p. 50.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
J. Hedemann, op. cit., Deutscher Wirtschaftsrecht, p. 1 et seq.; Nussbaum, op. cit., p. 2; Nipperdey, op. cit., p. 218; G. Del Vecchio, op. cit., Diritto e Económica, p. 4.
Nipperdey, op. cit., p. 218.
Nipperdey, op. cit., pp. 218–219.
G. Erdsiek, Methoden und Einrichtungen des Rechtsunterrichts in Deutschland, Beiträge zur Rechtsforschung, Tübingen, 1950, p. 246.
Vedel, Methoden und Einrichtungen des Rechtsunterrichts in Deutschland, Beiträge zur Rechtsforschung, Tübingen, 1950,Conceptions sociales, p. 5.
Rivero, Methoden und Einrichtungen des Rechtsunterrichts in Deutschland, Beiträge zur Rechtsforschung, Tübingen, 1950, p. 1.
See the following constitutions: Argentine, 16th March, 1949, Part IV (Articles 38–40), “The social function of property, capital and economic activity”; Bolivia, 23rd November, 1945, Section XIII (Articles 107–111), “Economic and Financial Regime”; Brazil, 24th September, 1946. Part V (Article 145–162), “The Economic and Social Order”; Burma, 24th September, 1947 (Article 23), “Economic Rights”; Eastern Germany, 19th March, 1949, Part II, “The Economic Order”; Guatemala, 11th March, 1945, Part IV (Articles 88–100), “Economic and Financial System”; Italy, 22nd December, 1947, Part III (Articles 35–47), “Economic Relations”; Panama, 1st March, 1946, Part XI (Articles 225–239), “National Economy”; Portugal, 1st August, 1935, Part VIII (Articles 29–41), “The Economic and Social Order”; the Saar, 15th December, 1947, Part V (Articles 43–59); Venezuela, 5th July, 1947, Chapter VII (Articles 65–75), “Of the National Economy”.
See the constitutions of Bulgaria, Chapter II (Articles 6–14); Rumania, Chapter II (Articles IV–IX); Poland, Chapter II (Articles 7–14); Albania, Chapter Chapter II (Articles IV–IX); Poland, Chapter II, (Articles 7–14); Albania, Chapter II (Articles 5–11); Czechoslovakia, Chapter VIII (Articles 146–164).
Article 1 of the Constitution of the USSR: “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Socialist State of the workers and peasants.”
Article 4 of the USSR Constitution.
See above, p. 42 et seq.
See above, p. 42 et seq., below, p. 335 et seq.
See above, pp. 36–37.
Article 44/4: “Public services and undertakings which affect the common interest may be nationalised where social needs so require.”
The Constitution of Peru (9th April, 1933), Article 38: “The State may, by virtue of a law, take over or nationalize land, sea, river, lake and aerial transport, or other public services in private ownership, after compensation and in conformity with the law in force.”
Article 4 of the Constitution of the USSR.
The Constitution of Paraguay, 10th July, 1940, (Article 15): “...The State may, with indemnification, nationalize public service and monopolize the production, circulation and sale of articles of primary necessity.”
The Constitution of Nicaragua, 1st November, 1950, (Article 70): “For purposes of general interest, the State may take part in the development and management of public-service enterprises, and may even nationalise them, in the latter case paying prior compensation.”
The Constitution of Burma, 24th September, 1947, (Article 23): “(4) Private property may be limited or expropriated if the public interest so requires... (5) Subject to the conditions set out in the last preceding sub-section, individual branches of national economy, or single enterprises may be nationalised or acquired by the State by law if the public interest so requires.”
The Constitution of Colombia, 16th February, 1945, (Article 30): “...For reasons of public utility or of social interest defined by the law-maker, there may be expropriation by judicial order and after indemnification”...; (Article 32): “The State may intervene by mandate of law in the development of public and private industries or enterprises, for the purpose of nationalizing the production, distribution and consumption of the resources or giving the labourer the just protection to which he is entitled.”
The Constitution of the German Democratic Republic, Article 23: “No limitation of property or expropriation may be effected except in the general interest and on a legal basis’’; Article 25: “All the natural resources of the subsoil, and all natural wealth which can be economically exploited, together with all mines and all undertakings for the production of iron and steel and of the energy necessary for this purpose shall be nationalised.”
The Constitution of the German Federal Republic, Article 14/3: “Expropriation may only be exercised for the good of the community...”; Article 15: “A statute may, for the purposes of socialisation, transfer the soil and the land, natural resources and the means of production to a system of collective ownership.”
The Constitution of Panama, 1st March, 1946, (Article 46): “For reasons of public utility or social interest defined in the law, there may be expropriation by judical decree and with prior indemnification”; Article 225: “The conduct of economic activities belongs primarily to private individuals. But the State will orient, direct, regulate, replace or establish such activities, according to social necessities...”
The Constitution of the Philippines, 8th February, 1935 (Article 13, Section 4): “The Congress may authorize, upon payment of just compensation, the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots, and conveyed at cost to individuals”; Section 6: “The State may, in the interest of national welfare and defense, establish and operate industries and means of transportation and communication and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government.”
The Constitution of Bulgaria, Article 10/5: “Private property may be limited or expropriated compulsorily, solely in the public interest”; Article 10/6: “The State may nationalise, wholly or partially, any branch or undertaking in industry, commerce, transport or credit”; Rumania, Article 10: “Expropriation on the ground of public utility may be effected by statute and subject to fair compensation fixed by the court”; Article 11: “Where the general interest so requires, the means of production, banks and insurance companies which are the private property of individuals or corporations may become the property of the State, that is to say, of the people, under the conditions specified by the law”; Yugoslavia, Article 18/5: “Private property may be limited and expropriated if the general interest so requires...”; Article 18/6: “On the same conditions, any branch or undertaking of the economy may be nationalised if the general interest so requires...”
See above, p. 123 et seq.
Clause XII of the Preamble (Fundamental Articles of the Constitution) and Articles 8–9 and 146–164 of the Constitution of Czecho-Slovakia.
Articles 148 and 152 of the Constitution of Czecho-Slovakia.
Article 153 of the Constitution of Czecho-Slovakia.
Clause XII of the Preamble: “The economic system of the Czecho-Slovak Republic is founded on the nationalisation of mineral wealth, industry, wholesale trade and finance...”
Article 4 of the Constitution of the USSR.
The Constitution of Italy, Article 42/3: “Private property may be, in the cases specified by law, and subject to compensation, expropriated for reasons of general interest”; Article 43: “For reasons of general utility, the law may reserve originally, or transfer, by expropriation and subject to compensation, to the State or to public bodies... (certain enterprises or groups of enterprises).”
Rivero, Le Régime des Nationalisations, 1950, p. 1.
Rivero, Le Régime des Nationalisations, 1950, p. 43 et seq.
Rivero, Le Régime des Nationalisations, 1950, p. 43, below, p. 337.
Clause 9 of the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946.
Article 52 of the Constitution of the Saar: “Key undertakings, collieries and transport cannot, in view of their paramount importance for the economy of the country, or their monopoly character, be the subject of private appropriation and must be administered in the public interest...” The influence of Clause 9 of the Preamble to the French Constitution is evident.
Article 52 of the Constitution of the Saar: “...All important economic undertakings may be expropriated by statute and restored to the public domain, where by their economic policy, their management and their operating methods they form a threat to the public welfare. Where there is good reason, the said undertakings may be placed under the control of the public authorities by a statute specially enacted.”
Chenot, op. cit., p. 367; Gendarme, op. cit., p. 229.
O. Pisko, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907, p. 15 et seq.
E.g. Article 1 of the Loi relative à la Nationalisation de la Banque de France, etc. in France; s. 5 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, in Great Britain; see also the relevant Acts relating to nationalisation in Czecho-Slovakia, of 24th October, 1945, Articles 4 and 5; in Bulgaria, of 27th December, 1947, Articles 6, 8 and 9; in Yugoslavia, of 6th December, 1946, Article 4, etc.
Perroux M, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907, Le Capitalisme, pp. 117, 118; Celier, op. cit., p. 94.
As is proved by the Preamble to all Nationalisation Acts; see Chenot, op. cit., p. 357, and Waline, Les Nationalisations, p. 86.
Salieron, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907, p. vi.
Salieron, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907, p. 123 et seq.
See above, Salieron, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907p. 128.
See above,Salieron, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907 p. 128.
See above,Salieron, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907 p. 74 et seq.
Perroux, Salieron, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907, p. 348.
See however above, Salieron, Das Unternehmen als Gegenstand des Rechtsverkehrs, Vienna, 1907p. 12.
Rivero, Le Régime des Nationalisations, 1960 p. 7;
G. Baudry, L’Expropriation pour Cause d’Utilité publique, 2nd ed., Paris, 1947, p. 5.
Vedel, La Technique des Nationalisations,1947, p. 98.
On the distinction between the two acts, see Waline, La Technique des Nationalisations,1947, pp. 98–100;
Bonnard, La Technique des Nationalisations,1947, p. 261;
Duez and Debeyere, La Technique des Nationalisations,1947, pp. 486–493. The doctrine of acte suprême de gouvernement is not generally recognised in Anglo-Saxon legal systems.
J. Escarra, Manuel de Droit commercial, Paris, 1947–1948, p. 232.
Armengaud, Manuel de Droit commercial, Paris, 1947–1948, p. 2.
Escarra, Manuel de Droit commercial, Paris, 1947–1948, p. 561: “What characterises nationalisation, in the proper sense of the term, is that the ownership of the nationalised industry is transferred to the national community, to the State. The ownership, but not necessarily the exploitation”;
see also G. Lyon-Caen, Les Diverses Formules de Nationalisation, Droit social, 1945, No. 2, pp. 41–42;
R. Roblot, Les Diverses Formules de Nationalisation, Droit social, 1945, p. 43.
Byé, Les Diverses Formules de Nationalisation, Droit social, 1945, p. 1: “The term ‘nationalisation’ is certainly very vague. It could be taken as ‘management in the interests of the Nation’, and one could speak in this sense, for example, of a ‘nationalisation’ of credit, which could be effected without ‘nationalising’ the banks.”
E.g. Chenot, Les Diverses Formules de Nationalisation, Droit social, 1945, p. 358: “The transfer of ownership and public management characterise nationalisation”; see also Gendarme, op. cit., p. x; Waline, Les Nationalisations, op. cit., p. 85; Rivero, Le Régime des Nationalisations, op. cit., p. 1.
Duez and Debeyere, Les Diverses Formules de Nationalisation, Droit social, 1945, p. 883.
On the meaning of étatisation, see below Duez and Debeyere, Les Diverses Formules de Nationalisation, Droit social, 1945, p. 150.
Perroux, Les Nationalisations, 1945, pp. 347–348.
University of Pennsylvania Review, 1949, Vol. 97, pp. 520–521.
See above, p. 133. It is of interest that, although the Constitution of the U.S.A. does not appear to recognise nationalisation, Article V of the “Bill of Rights” does by implication recognise the principle of eminent domain, or expropriation, in these well known words: “No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
De La Pradelle, op. cit., Les Effets internationaux, p. 61.
Baudry, op. cit., pp. 1, 4; Katzarov, Das Expropriationsverfahren, Innsbruck, 1920, p. 15 et seq.
See above,Katzarov, Das Expropriationsverfahren, Innsbruck, 1920 pp. 13–16.
Chenot, Das Expropriationsverfahren, Innsbruck, 1920, p. 374.
See above,Chenot, Das Expropriationsverfahren, Innsbruck, 1920 p. 15.
Doman, Das Expropriationsverfahren, Innsbruck, 1920, p. 1125;
S. Friedman, Expropriation in International Law, London, 1953, p. 221.
F. Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, Vol. III, p. 56 et seq., Katzarov, Expropriationsverfahren, p. 5.
Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, Vol. III, pp. 57–58;
Baudry, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929 p. 20 et seq.; Katzarov, Expropriationsverfahren, p. 28 et seq.
Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, Vol. III, p. 62.
See above,Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, Vol. III, pp. 127–129.
See above,Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, Vol. III, p. 128.
See above,Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, Vol. III, p. 42 et seq.
Some provisions of the nationalisation acts contain rules for the transmission of rights and obligations existing before the act of nationalisation. These rules have more the character of liquidation and do not change the nature of the act itself.
Duez and Debeyere, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, pp. 883–884; on the Czecho-Slovak concept, see Trnec, op. cit., p. 145.
Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929, Vol. III, p. 61; Baudry, op. cit., pp. 3, 35 et seq.
See above,Schlegelberger, Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, Berlin, 1929 pp. 133–138.
De La Pradelle, Les Effets internationaux, op. cit., p. 121.
Examples of such a list, which is always tending to grow in length and extent, may be found in nearly all the recent constitutions, e.g. Article 52 of the Constitution of the Saarland; Article 27 of the Constitution of Mexico; Article 148 of the Czecho-Slovak Constitution; Article 7 of the Bulgarian Constitution; Article 14 of the Yugoslav Constitution, etc.
See the texts cited above, p. 139 et seq.
See, with regard to France, Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1929, p. 48.
See above,France, Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1929 p. 133 et seq.
See below,France, Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1929 p. 160.
Baudry, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1929, p. 1;
Kruse, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1929, p. 251.
Ripert, Régime démocratique, 1929, p. 230.
De La Pradelle, Les Effets internationaux, op. cit., p. 121.
Duez and Debeyere, op. cit., p. 883.
Duez and Debeyere, op. cit., p. 883: “Compensation will follow special rules” Rivero, Le Régime des Nationalisations, op. cit., p. 7; see below, p. 322, et seq.; the question of the differentiation of compensation is dealt with in Part IV, Section III, below.
Kruse, op. cit., pp. 254–255.
De La Pradelle, Les Effets internationaux, op. cit., p. 44, uses the expression expropriation confiscatoire.
Doman, op. cit., p. 1125. And see also, e.g., G. A. Van Hecke, Confiscation, Expropriation, and the Conflict of Laws, the International Law Quarterly, 1951, p. 345; Fawcett, Some Foreign Effects, op. cit., p. 356;
I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Internationales Konfiskations- und Enteignungsrecht, Berlin-Tübingen, 1952, p. 5.
See above,I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Internationales Konfiskations- und Enteignungsrecht, Berlin-Tübingen, 1952 p. 133 et seq.
Article 9/2 of the Constitution of Czecho-Slovakia: “Expropriation may be effected only under statute and subject to compensation, save where the statute provides or shall provide that no compensation shall be paid.”
Article 14/3 of the Constitution of Eastern Germany: “...compensation shall be determined on a fair assessment of the interests of the community and those of the person concerned.”
In Great Britain, powers exist in time of war for the requisitioning of land and ships. In this case, requisitioning amounts to a temporary dispossession, the land and ships requisitioned being restored to the owner when no longer needed.
Duez and Debeyere, op. cit., p. 859; R. E. Megarry, A Manual of the Law of Real Property, London, 1949, p. 564; Ripert, Le Régime démocratique, op. cit., p. 231; Waline, Traité, op. cit., p. 411.
P. Guggenheim, Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit international, Bath Session, 1950, p. 79: “...the differentiation between expropriation and nationalisation has my entire support”; Hobza, op. cit., p. 86.
Lyon-Caen, Les Diverses Formules, op. cit., p. 42: “The normal rules of expropriation do not apply here”; Baudin, op. cit., p. 100; Duez and Debeyere, op. cit., p. 884.
E.g. Articles 11 and 470 of the French Criminal Code.
Article 92 of the Constitution of Guatemala of 11th March, 1945; Articles 58, 60 and 64 of the Constitution of Nicaragua of 21st January, 1948; Articles 21 and 67 of the Constitution of Venezuela of 5th July, 1947.
See above, pp. 138–139.
Article 11, French Criminal Code: “Placing under special Police supervision, fines and the special confiscation, either of the corpus delicti, when the property therein is vested in the person convicted, or of things produced by the offence, or of those which were used or intended to be used to commit it, are penalties common to criminal matters and summary offences.”
See above, p. 141.
See above, p. 138.
Article 470, French Criminal Code: “The court... may also... order the confiscation of goods seized in connection with the offence.”
Doman, op. cit., p. 1125: “In the case of refusal of compensation or the offer of granting of inadequate compensation, nationalisation resembles confiscation”; Edward D. Re, Foreign Confiscation in Anglo-American Law, New York, 1951, p. 5 et seq.
Jacquignon, op. cit., p. 368.
Van Hecke, op. cit., p. 345: “By confiscation is meant the taking of property without adequate compensation, by whatever method it may be carried or cloaked”; Fawcett, Some Foreign Effects, op. cit., p. 356; Seidl-Hohenveldern, op. cit., p. 5 et seq.; P. Adriaanse, Confiscation in Private International Law, The Hague, 1956, pp. 6–7, 165.
See above, p. 138.
For example, the nationalisation of the Usines Renault in France; see above, p. 44.
E.g. in all the nationalisations in Eastern Europe, against those who collaborated with the Nazis.
From this point of view, the Polish Act of 5th February, 1946 is very typical (see above, p. 58) in combining confiscation and nationalisation in Article 2, when it stipulates: “The following shall become national property without compensation, namely industrial, mining, transport, banking, insurance and commercial undertakings (a) of the German Reich and the former Free State of Dantzig (b) of citizens of the German Reich...” This Article does not introduce either outright confiscation, or nationalisation without compensation, but two things, confiscation and simultaneously, nationalisation. Nationalisation itself is further regulated by Article 3 of the Act.
See above, p. 42 et seq.; below, p. 335.
See above, p. 34; below, p. 332.
See below, p. 324 et seq.; see also Article 14/3 of the Constitution of Federal Germany.
See below, Part IV, Section III.
See above, p. 42 et seq.
Voinea, op. cit., p. xiv.
Perroux, op. cit., p. 348.
See below, p. 179 et seq.
See below, p. 190 et seq.
Byé, op. cit., p. 23.
Katzarov, Nouveaux Aspects, op. cit., p. 431.
Katzarov, Nouveaux Aspects, op. cit., pp. 440–442.
For certain details, see Katzarov, Nouveaux Aspects, op. cit., pp. 441–445.
Even nationalisations which, by their nature, are very close to étatisation, as for example, those of the Central Banks, are described in the relevant statutes as “nationalisations”, e.g. Act No. 45–015 of 2nd December, 1945 on the nationalisation of the Bank of France, Journal Officiel, No. 285 (3rd December, 1945).
Baudin, op. cit., p. 109: “Nationalisation consists in the transfer to the nation of the ownership and management of an undertaking. It is not étatisation”; Gendarme, op. cit., p. 27: “In the first place, nationalisation must be distinguished from étatisation. Nationalisation means the handing over to the nation, and not to the State, of a fraction of industry”; Perroux, op. cit., p. 348: “Nationalisation is distinguished from étatisation. Nationalisation expresses the desire to restore industry, or one of its sectors, to the nation and not to the State”; Vedel, op. cit., La Technique des Nationalisations, p. 97: “But nationalisation is not étatisation, as has been said again and again.”
See below, pp. 193–195, 210 et seq.
Duguit, Traité de Droit constitutionnel, Paris, 1928, Vol. II, p. 12 et seq., Del Vecchio, op. cit., p. 492 et seq., Ruyssen, op. cit., p. 24.
Duguit, Traité de Droit constitutionnel, Paris, 1928, Vol. III, p. 14 et seq.
Del Vecchio, Traité de Droit constitutionnel, Paris, 1928, p. 492.
Duguit, Traité de Droit constitutionnel, Paris, 1928, Vol. II, p. 12.
See above,Duguit, Traité de Droit constitutionnel, Paris, 1928 p. 5 et seq.
W. Burckhardt, Einführung in die Rechtswissenschaft, Zürich, 1939, p. 113 et seq.
Article 5 of the Constitution of the USSR. In at least one country, Great Britain, other public authorities have been created to administer particular nationalised undertakings in the public interest. These do not fall conveniently into any of the categories defined in the text. Robson has defined them as “non-profit making public corporations subject to some degree of State control” (Robson, op. cit., pp. 74–77).
Fr. Luchaire, Le Statut des Entreprises publiques. Droit social, 1947, No. 7, p. 254; Celier, op. cit., p. 96; Salieron, op. cit., p. xvi.
Article 5 of the Constitution of the USSR: “Socialist property in the USSR takes the form either of State property (the property of the whole people) or cooperative and collective farm property (the property of each collective farm and cooperative union).”
See below, p. 233 et seq.
E.g. the Bulgarian Act of 27th December, 1947 stipulates that cooperative undertakings and craft industries are not subject to nationalisation.
Celier, op. cit., p. 96.
Lyon-Caen, Les Diverses Formules, op. cit., p. 41.
An example of this is the definition of “socialist property” given by Article 5 of the Constitution of the USSR, which embraces State property as well as cooperative and collective farm property.
Leverkuehn, op. cit., pp. 782–783, gives an interesting list of possibilities which a “community” affected by nationalisation has of exercising its rights: “In Hamburg, for instance, an opinion on socialisation was given at the request of the Hamburg Senate (Das Hamburger Sozialisierungsgutachten, annotated by Klabunde, Hamburg, 1947). Here it is said: socialisation amounts to nationalisation in exceptional cases only. Normally, it ought to take the following forms — (a) cooperatives with a considerable number of members, who need not be employees of the socialised undertaking, (b) cooperative organisations, (c) cooperative management in the form of cooperative Unkings of public law corporations and local authorities (d)... (e) public law corporations, (f) private and public companies owned by trade unions, (g) private and public companies owned by public bodies, (h) a combination of two or more of the above forms.”
The acquisition by the State of a gaming casino would also be inconsistent with the concept of nationalisation. An asset of this kind could be expropriated by the State for fiscal reasons, but not nationalised.
Racine, op. cit., p. xxvii.
M. Byé, Le Conflit, op. cit., p. 21.
Experience in Great Britain confirms much of the foregoing. The essence of the act of nationalisation is seen to be the transfer of an economic activity from the ownership and control of private individuals and profit-making bodies to the ownership and control of some public body representing the community at large. This public body does not operate essentially with a profit motive, and is publicly accountable for the conduct of the undertaking. It would not effect the nature of the act of nationalisation if this public body were to be a department of the central government; the results in such a case would be a complete absorption of the activity by the central government and would thus constitute étatisation. But it was realised by the Labour government of 1945–1951 that the nature of the undertakings nationalised, mainly large scale commercial and industrial undertakings, did not render administration by a government department the most effective method of organisation. Instead, the nationalisation statutes provided for the creation of new public corporations, e.g. the National Coal Board, the British Transport Commission. These new bodies were distinct from the regular departments of the central government but were nonetheless instruments of public policy and were subject to control on matters of policy by the government. On day to day matters, managerial decisions and routine activities, the new corporations were to be independent of government control. The corporations have their own legal personality and are subject to the ordinary law of the land: they do not share the immunity of the Crown from criminal prosecution and are not servants or agents of the Crown. (See the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Tamlin v. Hannaford [1950] 1 K.B. 18). The independent legal status of the corporations should not obscure the very real political control exercised over them on policy matters by the government. (See below, p. 212). In Great Britain, therefore, nationalisation has not meant a proliferation of new government departments, i.e. it has not been implemented through étatisation. But, for the reasons given, although the nationalised undertakings are administered by means of semi-independent public corporations, it would be correct in a general way to describe the undertakings both as “State owned” and “State controlled”. (See Robson, op. cit., Chapter III, especially pp. 74–77). It may be added that Britain has not yet reached a final solution to the difficult political and administrative problems arising from the situation of the nationalised undertakings being treated partly as commercial undertakings and at the same time subject to some governmental control. (See Robson, op. cit., pp. 157–162).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1964 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Katzarov, K. (1964). The Legal Nature of Nationalisation. In: The Theory of Nationalisation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1055-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1055-4_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0425-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-1055-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive